Crawley v. Superintendent

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Anthony Crawley. The Court is also DENYING the Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 1/28/2016. (lhc)(cc: Crawley)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ANTHONY CRAWLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 4:16-CV-9-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
The Petitioner, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition [ECF No. 1] challenging ISP
15-05-0033, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Indiana State Prison on May 26, 2015,
where the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Disfigurement in violation of C304 and sanctioned him with restitution in the amount of $12,666.50. The Petitioner did not lose any
earned credit time, nor did he receive a demotion in credit class.
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. 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 the Petitioner’s confinement, habeas corpus relief is not
available.
The Petitioner argues that the amount of restitution is incorrect. Although the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law,” neither a negligent deprivation of property nor an
unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee constitutes a violation of the

procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment if the state provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy for the loss. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer,
468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). As a general rule, the Indiana Tort Claims Act, Ind. Code § 34-13-3-1 et
seq., provides a sufficient remedy for loss of personal property, including loss of or damage to legal
materials. See Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Wynn has an adequate postdeprivation remedy in the Indiana Tort Claims Act, and no more process was due.”) Thus, to the
extent the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent wrongfully deprived him of property, he may have
a remedy in state court, but he does not have a remedy in this Court.
Additionally, pursuant to RULE 11 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES, the
Court must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability in all cases where it enters a final order
adverse to the petitioner. To obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the
petitioner must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that)
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). As explained above, because the disciplinary
proceeding did not result in the lengthening of the duration of the Petitioner’s confinement, habeas
corpus relief is not available. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue the Petitioner a certificate of
appealability.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court also DENIES the Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
SO ORDERED on January 28, 2016.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

3