BROWN v. FINNAN

Filing 4

ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Because Petitioner's habeas petition shows on its face that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks, the action is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/6/2011. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. mail.(LBK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LEVOHN H. BROWN,
Petitioner,
v.
ALAN P. FINNAN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:11-cv-413-JMS-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
This cause is before the court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of
Levohn B. Brown.
“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that
appears legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
This authority is conferred by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
United States District Courts, which provides that upon preliminary consideration by the
district court judge, "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall
make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified." See
Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993). This is an appropriate case for
such a disposition.
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254(a) only if it finds the applicant “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States.” Id. Brown is confined at an Indiana prison and seeks
relief from a disciplinary proceeding wherein he was sanctioned with non-custodial
sanctions. Mamone v. United States, 559 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2009); Virsnieks v.
Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir. 2008). A sanction which does not constitute
“custody” cannot be challenged in an action for habeas corpus relief. Cochran v. Buss,
381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004); Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th
Cir. 2001).

Because Brown’s habeas petition shows on its face that he is not entitled to the
relief he seeks, the action is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4. Judgment
consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

06/06/2011
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana