Mazon v. Superintendent

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER granting Motion to Dismiss (DE 6). The petition (DE 2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 1/9/18. (ksp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ARTURO MAZON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-157-JD-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Arturo Mazon, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed this habeas corpus case (ECF 2) attempting
to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing in case number WCC 16-11-398 held at the Westville
Correctional Facility on December 16, 2016, where he was found guilty of Attempted Assault on
Staff in violation of Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) policy A-111. ECF 2 at 1. As a
result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 180 days earned credit time and demoted from Credit Class
2 to Credit Class 3. Id. The Warden moved to dismiss (ECF 6) the petition and filed documents
showing Mazon had not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing his habeas petition as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). See Moffatt v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-82 (7th Cir. 2002).
Mazon did not file a response. Nevertheless, the court sua sponte enlarged the deadline and granted
Mazon until December 15, 2017, to file a response to the motion to dismiss along with a copy of the
Letter from the Final Reviewing Authority proving that he had exhausted his administrative remedies.
ECF 9. He was cautioned that if he failed to respond by the deadline, the court would grant the
motion to dismiss and the case would be dismissed without prejudice. Id. The deadline has passed
and Mazon has not responded to the motion.

Principles of exhaustion that apply to federal review of criminal convictions also apply to
review of prison disciplinary proceedings. See Eads v. Hanks, 280 F.3d 728, 729 (7th Cir. 2002);
Markam v. Clark, 978 F.2d 993, 994-95 (7th Cir. 1992). Before seeking federal habeas relief, a
prisoner must take all available administrative appeals, and must raise in those appeals any issue on
which he seeks federal review. Eads, 280 F.3d at 729.
The Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) has established a two-step administrative
appeals process. The offender must first file a facility-level appeal within 15 days of the date of the
disciplinary hearing or receipt of the hearing report. If the facility head denies the first appeal, the
offender must then file a second-level appeal within 15 days of the date of facility-level response with
the final reviewing authority for the IDOC, asserting only the claims that were asserted in the
first-level appeal. See Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders, IDOC Policy & Administrative
Procedures

No.

02-04-101,

§§

X(A)-(D)

(effective

June

1,

2015),

available

at

http://www.in.gov/idoc/3265.htm (last visited January 5, 2018).
Here, Mazon does not dispute any of the assertions in the Warden’s motion. Based on the
record, he did not appeal the finding of guilt in case number WCC 16-11-398 to the final reviewing
authority for the IDOC. ECF 6-3.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss (ECF 6) is GRANTED and the petition (ECF
2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 9, 2018
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court

2