Muhammad v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Akeem A Muhammad. The Petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 7/31/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION AKEEM A. MUHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:17-cv-581-JD-MGG OPINION AND ORDER Akeem A. Muhammad, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 17-03-415) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of unauthorized gang activity in violation of B-208. ECF 1 at 1. The DHO sanctioned him with the loss of 60 days earned credit time and a demotion from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id. However, these deprivations were suspended and have 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. 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: July 31, 2017. /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 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?