Jones v. Superintendent

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Court DENIES the Petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 5/30/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION VINCENT JONES, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-267-PPS-MGG OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the habeas corpus petition filed by Vincent Jones, a pro se prisoner, attempting to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty of destroying State property. [DE 1 at 1.] As a result, Jones was sanctioned with the loss of 30 days earned credit time and was demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. [Id.] However, Jones’ administrative appeal was granted, and his charge and conviction was lowered to refusing to comply with an order. [Id.] His earned credit time and credit class were restored. [DE 1-1 at 2.] Thus, Jones has not been deprived of a liberty interest as a result of this hearing. A prison disciplinary action 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). Here, because the disciplinary sanctions lengthening the duration of his confinement have already been overturned, habeas corpus relief is not available. Because there is no relief that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition will be denied. For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: May 30, 2017. s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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?