Konrath v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER: The habeas corpus petition is DENIED and Gregory Konrath is CAUTIONED that if he persists filing meritless habeas corpus petitions, he may be subject to further restrictions, fines, and sanctions. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 1/9/2017. cc: Konrath (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
GREGORY KONRATH,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 3:17-cv-20

OPINION AND ORDER
Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to
challenge a prison disciplinary hearing where he was found guilty of Insolent Behavior
in violation of Code No. 348 by a disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) at the Westville
Correctional Facility. (DE 1 at 1.) He neither lost earned credit time nor was demoted in
credit class as a result of this hearing. (Id.) A prison disciplinary hearing can only be
challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it results in the lengthening of the
duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Therefore,
habeas corpus relief is not available in this case.
This is not news to Konrath. Before he signed this habeas corpus petition on
December 23, 2016, he had already been told at least three times that habeas corpus relief
is not available unless he is challenging a disciplinary proceeding that has extended his
earliest possible release date. See Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr. Facility, No.
3:16-cv-805 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 7, 2016) (DE 4); Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr.

Facility, No. 3:16-cv-839 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 12, 2016) (DE 2); Konrath v. Superintendent,
Westville Corr. Facility, No. 3:16-cv-852 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2016) (DE 2).
Nor is this Konrath’s first time around the block with meritless habeas corpus
petitions that are a supreme waste of judicial resources. In Konrath v. Superintendent,
Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:17-cv-18 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2017), he challenged the same
prison disciplinary hearing he’d already raised in Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville
Correctional Facility, 3:16-cv-878 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2016), even though his claims remained
unexhausted. Similarly, in Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:17cv-017 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2017), he challenged the same disciplinary hearing underlying Konrath
v. Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:16-cv-809 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 25, 2016), even though he
had not been authorized to file a successive petition by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
And in Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:17-cv-19 (N.D. Ind.
Jan. 3, 2017), he challenged a prison disciplinary hearing that did not result in the loss of any
earned credit time, even though he had already challenged that same hearing in two different
habeas cases. See Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr. Facility, No. 3:16-cv-839 (N.D.
Ind. Dec. 8, 2016); Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr. Facility, No. 3:16-cv-879 (N.D.
Ind. Dec. 16, 2016).
Konrath is an abusive litigator. He has already been restricted from filing civil
cases other than habeas corpus cases. See Konrath v. Unity Healthcare, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-9
(N.D. Ind. Jan. 5, 2017) (DE 5). And his meritless habeas corpus filings are just as much of
a drain on judicial resources. “Federal courts have both the inherent power and
constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their
ability to carry out Article III functions.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 n. 8 (1989)

2

(quoting In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F. 2d 1254 (2nd Cir. 1984)). And litigants who abuse
the judicial process can be restricted from filing new cases and can be sanctioned. Free v.
United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989).
Therefore, if Konrath continues filing meritless and repetitious habeas corpus
petitions, he may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted from filing any habeas corpus case
other than one challenging his criminal conviction. See generally Montgomery v. Davis,
362 F.3d 956, 957 (7th Cir. 2004) (fining two abusive habeas corpus filers $500 each and
directing the clerks of federal courts to “return unfiled any papers submitted . . . in any
habeas corpus action unless the petition attacks a state court imposed criminal
judgment” until the filers had paid all outstanding fees and sanctions).
For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED and Gregory Konrath is
CAUTIONED that if he persists filing meritless habeas corpus petitions, he may be
subject to further restrictions, fines, and sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 9, 2017.
s/ Philip P. Simon
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3