Hickey v. Superintendent

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: The amended petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 10/24/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(tc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION CHRISTOPHER HICKEY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-536-PPS-MGG OPINION AND ORDER Christopher Hickey, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended petition for habeas corpus attempting to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 17-05-462) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of possession of a cell phone in violation of Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) policy A-121. (ECF 3 at 1.) As a result, Hickey was sanctioned with the loss of earned credit time and a demotion in credit class. However, those sanctions were suspended and have not been imposed. Hickey 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 Hickey’s sanctions affecting the duration of his confinement have not been imposed, 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. To the extent that Hickey’s sanctions are imposed at a later date, he may file a new habeas corpus case, under a new case number. For the reasons set forth above, the amended petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: October 24, 2017. _/s 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?