Pierpont v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER: The habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 5/1/2015. cc: Pierpont (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
DUSTIN PIERPONT,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 4:15-CV-035 JM

OPINION and ORDER
Dustin Pierpont, a pro se prisoner, is challenging the prison disciplinary hearing
that was held at the Miami Correctional Facility on December 12, 2014, under case
number MCF 14-12-116 where the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty
of Possession or Use of a Controlled Substance in violation of B-202 and sanctioned him
with the loss of 90 days earned credit time. Pierpont argues that despite having pleaded
guilty, the finding of guilt should be overturned because of two violations of the
Offender Urinalysis Program Manual of Policies and Procedures.
However, the court “need look no further than one key piece of evidence: [his]
confession.” Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 940 (7th Cir. 2007). Pierpont confessed
when he pleaded guilty. In so doing, he waived any due process claims he might have
otherwise had. Nevertheless, even if he had not done so, the violation of a prison rule is
not a basis for habeas corpus relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In
conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction
violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). Therefore, even if he

had not pleaded guilty and even if the policies in the manual were not followed, this
court could not grant him habeas corpus relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to
HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4.
SO ORDERED.
Date: May 1, 2015
s/ James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2