Merritt v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER: The petition is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 2/16/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
Omar Merritt,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 3:17-CV-105 JVB

Superintendent,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Omar Merritt, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking monetary
compensation for a prison disciplinary hearing which was overturned on appeal. In MCF 15-09444 he was found guilty by a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) at the Miami Correctional
Facility of possessing a dangerous device in violation of A-106. He was sanctioned with the loss
of 120 days Earned Credit Time and demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. However, all
of this was overturned during his administrative appeals. So the duration of his confinement has
not been lengthened by that proceeding.
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). Though he argues that he lost his job and other privileges because of the charges,
that is not cognizable in a habeas corpus case. See Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir.
2004). For these reasons, the petition is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk
is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED on February 16, 2017.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2