Winemiller v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner James Winemiller. 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 7/27/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JAMES WINEMILLER,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17CV530-PPS/MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
James Winemiller, a pro se prisoner, has filed a petition for habeas corpus
attempting to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing (ISR 17-03-112) where the
Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of possession of a controlled
substance in violation of B-202. ECF 1 at 1. As a result, Winemiller was sanctioned with
commissary and phone restrictions, and served time in segregation. ECF 1-1 at 3.
Winemiller 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 Winemiller’s sanctions did not effect 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.
ACCORDINGLY:

For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254
Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: July 27, 2017.

/s/ Philip P. Simon
Judge
United States District Court

2