MOORE v. BUTTS

Filing 3

ENTRY - The petition of Delvonta Moore for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his placement in a segregation unit at an Indiana prison is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/2/2012. Copy Mailed.(JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

DELVONTA MOORE,
Petitioner,

vs.
KEITH BUTTS,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-1160-TWP-DML

Entry Discussing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petition of Delvonta Moore for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his
placement in a segregation unit at an Indiana prison is denied and this action is
dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in
the United States District Court. This disposition is based on the following facts and
circumstances:
1.

Rule 4 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).

2.

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.
3.

In order to proceed, Moore must meet the “in custody” requirement of

§ 2254(a). Meeting this requirement is a matter of jurisdictional significance.
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam). A[T]he inquiry into whether a
petitioner has satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites for habeas review requires a
court to judge the >severity= of an actual or potential restraint on liberty.@ Poodry v.
Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874, 894 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 1041 (1996).
4.

A decision 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). The
classification decision Moore challenges in this case did not deprive him of a
recognized liberty or property interest. Accordingly, prison authorities were “free to
use any procedures [they] chose[ ], or no procedures at all.@ Id. at 644.
5.

Because Moore’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.
10/02/2012
Date: _________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Delvonta Moore
#162072
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064