Craig v. Warden

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER denying 11 Motion to Dismiss. The Warden is ORDERED to file a response to the petition with the entire administrative record by 3/22/19. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-30-RLM-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Larry Craig, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his prison disciplinary case WVE 16-1242. The Warden has moved to dismiss Mr. Craig’s petition. Mr. Craig filed a
response to the motion, and the motion is fully briefed.
The history of case WVE 16-12-42 is as follows. In April 2017, Mr. Craig
filed a petition challenging his prison disciplinary case in WVE 16-12-42 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. See Craig v. Warden, 2:17CV-178-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. filed April 19, 2017). He alleged a number of due
process violations stemming from his December 2016 hearing in which the
hearing officer at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility sanctioned him after
finding him guilty of assault on staff in violation of Indiana Department of
Correction (IDOC) policy A-117. In August 2017, the Department of Correction
vacated Mr. Craig’s guilty finding and sanctions and remanded the case for a new
hearing. The federal court then dismissed the case. A hearing officer at the

Westville Correctional Facility reheard the case and found Mr. Craig guilty of
assault on staff. He was sanctioned with the loss of 60 days earned credit time
and a one-step demotion in credit class. Mr. Craig then filed this petition
challenging the rehearing.
The Warden now moves to dismiss the petition because Mr. Craig didn’t
exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his petition with this court. The
Warden says Mr. Craig raised nine issues in his petition but didn’t raise any of
them in either his first-level appeal with the facility head or second-level appeal
with the final reviewing authority. Because of this failure to exhaust, the Warden
contends Mr. Craig’s claims are procedurally barred from review by this court.
The Warden is mistaken. The Warden is looking at claims Mr. Craig raised
in his first petition, not those raised in this one. Mr. Craig raised all nine issues
presented in this petition in his administrative appeals. ECF 1-1 at 2-6. Because
Mr. Craig properly litigated the issues he raised in his petition in his first-level and
second-level appeals in the instant case, he isn’t procedurally barred from
presenting those claims to this court.
For these reasons, the Warden’s motion to dismiss (ECF 11) is DENIED.
The Warden is ORDERED to file a response to the petition with the entire
administrative record by March 22, 2019.

2

SO ORDERED on February 6, 2019.
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3