SNODGRASS v. FINNAN

Filing 4

ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED. 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 5/19/2011. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. mail.(LBK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
RALPH SNODGRASS,
Petitioner,
vs.
ALAN P. FINNAN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-671-JMS-DML

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
This cause is before the court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Ralph
Snodgrass. Snodgrass’ request to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is granted.
“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. Snodgrass is confined at an Indiana prison and seeks review of
and relief from a disciplinary proceeding, wherein he was sanctioned with a period of time
in disciplinary segregation. This sanction was non-custodial. 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 Snodgrass’ 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.

Date:

05/19/2011
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana