Adams v. Warden

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 8 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Warden. Adams's Petition (ECF 2) is DENIED and the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 5/21/18. (ksp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL ADAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-769-JD-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Adams, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 challenging his prison disciplinary case ISR 17-02-0074. The Warden filed a
motion to dismiss Adams’s petition on March 29, 2018. ECF 8. Adams did not respond
to the motion and the time to do so has passed. See N.D. Ind. L. Cr. R. 47-2.
On March 10, 2017, a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found Adams guilty of
Possession and/or Use of a Controlled Substance in violation of B-202. ECF 8-1 at 1. As
a result, he was sanctioned with a written reprimand, loss of privileges (telephone,
commissary, and kiosk), and three months in disciplinary segregation (suspended). Id.
The Warden now moves to dismiss Adams’s petition on the basis that he did not suffer
any grievous loss which would impact the length of his sentence and is therefore not
entitled to habeas corpus relief. ECF 8 at 1-2.
A prison disciplinary hearing 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 the disciplinary action has not

resulted in the lengthening of the duration of Adams’s 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 these reasons, the Warden’s motion to dismiss (ECF 8) is GRANTED and
Adams’s petition (ECF 2) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case.
SO ORDERED on May 21, 2018

/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2