Muhammad v. Superintendent
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. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 7/31/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
AKEEM A. MUHAMMAD,
CAUSE NO. 3:17-cv-582-JD-MGG
OPINION AND ORDER
Akeem A. Muhammad, a pro se prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison
disciplinary hearing (WCC 17-03-413) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty
of threatening another in violation of B-213. ECF 1 at 1. However, he did not lose any earned credit time,
and was not demoted in credit class. 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.
For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition pursuant to SECTION 2254
HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is DISMISSED.
ENTERED: July 31, 2017
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
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?