BURCH v. BUTTS

Filing 16

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The respondent's motion to dismiss 14 is granted. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/30/2012. Copy Mailed.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JAMES BURCH,
Petitioner,
v.
KEITH BUTTS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-cv-00388-JMS-DML

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
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. Because habeas petitioner James Burch
fails to show that this is the case with respect to the disciplinary proceeding
challenged in this case, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and
this action dismissed.
Discussion
In a disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISR 12-01-0122, Burch was
found guilty of violating a rule at an Indiana prison. Contending that the
proceeding was constitutionally infirm, Burch seeks a writ of habeas corpus.
Based upon the pleadings and the expanded record, the parties agree on the
salient facts. The sanctions imposed based on Burch’s misconduct included a
suspended deprivation of earned good time. Due to the passage of time during
which that particular sanction was not imposed, the specific sanction can no longer
be imposed. This renders Burch unable to satisfy the “in custody” requirement of
the federal habeas statute. The remaining sanctions did not result in the imposition
of custody and hence cannot be challenged in an action for habeas corpus relief.
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004)(“State prisoners who want to
raise a constitutional challenge to a[ ] . . . decision[ ] such as transfer to a new
prison, administrative segregation, exclusion from prison programs, or suspension
of privileges, must . . . employ [42 U.S.C.] ' 1983 or another statute authorizing
damages or injunctions--when the decision may be challenged at all . . . .”);
Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001)(explaining that when no
recognized liberty or property interest has been taken, which is the case here, the
confining authority Ais free to use any procedures it chooses, or no procedures at
all@)

The respondent’s motion to dismiss [14] is granted. The petition for writ of
habeas corpus is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/30/2012
Date: _________________
Distribution:
James Burch
No. 208000
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064-9001
Electronically Registered Counsel

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