INMAN v. BUTTS

Filing 3

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Because Inman'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. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/3/2012. (JKS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA MICHAEL E. INMAN, JR. Petitioner, v. KEITH BUTTS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:11-cv-1680-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 Michael E. Inman, Jr., a state prisoner who brings this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. AFederal 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 Ais in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.@ Id. Inman is confined at an Indiana prison and seeks review of and relief from a disciplinary proceeding in which he was sanctioned with a written reprimand, a change in work/housing assignment and a loss of contact visits for six months. These sanctions were 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 Acustody@ 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 Inman=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. 01/03/2012 Date: __________________ _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?