Konrath v. Superintendent
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gregory Konrath. The Petition is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 1/9/17. (cc: Gregory Konrath). (cer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
GREGORY KONRATH,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-017
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gregory
Konrath, a pro se prisoner, on January 3, 2017. For the reasons
set forth below, this case is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 16-08144) where a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) at the Westville
Correctional Facility found him guilty of Violating State Law in
violation of A-100. This is not the first time that Konrath has
brought a habeas corpus petition challenging that hearing. In
Konrath v. Superintendent, 3:16-CV-809 (N.D. Ind. filed November
25, 2016), he challenged this same proceeding. In that case, the
court dismissed the petition pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4
because the ground presented was meritless.
As such, this is an unauthorized successive petition over
which
this
court
2244(b)(3)(A).
successive
“A
has
no
jurisdiction.
district
petition,
court
without
must
awaiting
See
dismiss
any
28
a
response
U.S.C.
second
from
§
or
the
government, unless the court of appeals has given approval for its
filing.”
Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996)
(emphasis
in
authorization
original).
from
the
Here,
Seventh
Konrath
Circuit
to
has
file
not
a
obtained
successive
petition.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.
DATED: January 9, 2017
/s/Rudy Lozano, Judge
United States District Court
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?