Konrath v. Superintendent
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for want of jurisdiction and Gregory Konrath is CAUTIONED that if he persists filing meritless habeas corpus petitions, he may be subject to further fines, sanctions, or restrictions. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 1/24/17. (cc: Konrath)(ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CAUSE NO.: 3:17-CV-50-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition [ECF No. 1] in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on January 10, 2017, which was
transferred here. In his petition, Konrath challenges the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 16-12175) where a disciplinary hearing officer at the Westville Correctional Facility found him guilty
of Impairment of Surveillance in violation of B-209. This is not the first time that Konrath has
brought a habeas corpus petition challenging that hearing; it is the third. He first challenged it in
Konrath v. Superintendent, 3:16-CV-878 (N.D. Ind. filed December 16, 2016), where the court
dismissed the petition because he had not exhausted his administrative appeals. He again
challenged it in Konrath v. Superintendent, 3:17-CV-18 (N.D. Ind. filed January 3, 2017), where
the court dismissed the petition as being procedurally defaulted.
As such, this is an unauthorized successive petition over which this court has no
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “A district court must dismiss a second or successive
petition, without awaiting any response from 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 original). Here, Konrath has not obtained authorization from the Seventh Circuit to
file a successive petition. Thus, this petition must be dismissed.
As a final note, even if this court had jurisdiction over the petition, it would be denied as
a malicious duplicate. Konrath signed the habeas petition in this case on the same date and time
as he signed the one in Case No. 3:17-CV-18. Essentially, Konrath filled out two habeas petitions
challenging the same disciplinary hearing and sent one to the Southern District of Indiana and
one to the Northern District of Indiana. Based on his prior filings in this court, he knows that it is
malicious to file duplicative cases. He knew it before he signed this habeas petition on December
22, 2016, because he was informed of that on October 25, 2016. See e.g., Konrath v. Hughes,
Case No. 3:16-CV-712 (N.D. Ind. filed Oct. 17, 2016), order issued October 25, 2016. As he has
been told, there is simply no legitimate reason to pursue two identical habeas petitions. And, to
do so in two separate courts is an abuse of the judicial process.
Konrath is an abusive litigator and has become restricted from filing any civil cases other
than habeas corpus. See Konrath v. Unity Healthcare, LLC, 3:17-CV-009 (N.D. Ind. filed
January 4, 2017). He has also been cautioned that persisting to abuse the judicial process in
habeas corpus cases may lead to him being restricted from filing those, too. Konrath v.
Superintendent, Case No. 3:16-CV-879 (N.D. Ind. filed Dec. 16, 2016 ), order issued January 4,
2017; Konrath v. Superintendent, Case No. 3:17-CV-20 (N.D. Ind. filed Jan. 5, 2017), order
issued January 9, 2017. The current duplicative habeas petition is the type of abusive filing that
Konrath has been warned to stop filing. However, because he had not received those cautionary
orders before he mailed this petition, he will not be restricted from filing habeas corpus cases at
this time. But, he is again CAUTIONED that if continues to file meritless habeas corpus
petitions, he may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted from filing any habeas corpus case other than
the one challenging his criminal conviction. See Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 958 (7th
For these reasons, the successive habeas petition is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction
and Gregory Konrath is CAUTIONED that if he persists filing meritless habeas corpus petitions,
he may be subject to further fines, sanctions, or restrictions.
SO ORDERED on January 24, 2017.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
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?