Holmes v. Superintendent, Miami Correctional Facility

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER, DISMISSING 1 Petition pursuant to RULE 4 OF THE RULESGOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/4/13. (mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
QUINTON D. HOLMES,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 4:13-CV-023 RM

OPINION AND ORDER
Quinton D. Holmes, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE 1.) The court is obligated to
review the petition and dismiss it if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING
SECTION 2254 CASES.
According to the petition, Mr. Holmes was found guilty of fighting in MCF 11-120125, and as a sanction lost his contact visits for a period of six months. (DE 1.) A prison
disciplinary sanction can only be challenged in a habeas petition if it lengthens the duration
of the prisoner’s confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2003);
Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-51 (7th Cir. 2000). The prison’s decision to suspend
Mr. Holmes’ contact visitation privileges affected the severity, but not the duration, of his
confinement. Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d at 651. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper vehicle to
challenge more restrictive custody, “in the uncommon circumstances when it can be
challenged at all.” Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001).

For these reasons, the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to RULE 4 OF THE RULES
GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES.
SO ORDERED
ENTERED: April 4 , 2013.
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

2