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)
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?