Hatmaker v. Superintendent

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner David Andrew Hatmaker, Sr. The Petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 5/22/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (cer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION DAVID ANDREW HATMAKER, SR., Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-274 PPS-MGG OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the habeas corpus petition filed by David Andrew Hatmaker, Sr., a pro se prisoner. The petition attempts to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing (ISO 17-01-08) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance in violation of B-202. [DE 1 at 1.] The DHO sanctioned him with the loss of 30 days earned credit time. [Id.] However, the deprivation was suspended and has not yet been imposed. [Id.] As such, he has not yet 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. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, because this disciplinary proceeding did not result in the lengthening of the duration of his confinement, 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. If in the future this suspended sanction is imposed, then he may file another habeas corpus petition challenging it. 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 22, 2017. _s/ Philip P. Simon______________ PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

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?