HUDSON v. BUTTS

Filing 7

ENTRY - Petitioner's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Because Hudson'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 Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/18/2012. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CHRISTOPHER HUDSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
KEITH BUTTS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-1466-TWP-DKL

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The request to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 2] is granted.
The petition of Christopher Hudson for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a
prison disciplinary proceeding 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 “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Id.
3.
In order to proceed, Hudson 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). “[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).
a.
“A prisoner challenging the process he was afforded in a prison
disciplinary proceeding must meet two requirements: (1) he has a liberty or
property interest that the state has interfered with; and (2) the procedures he

was afforded upon that deprivation were constitutionally deficient.” Scruggs
v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007).
b.
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).
c.
If a habeas petitioner has suffered the deprivation of a protected
liberty interest the procedural protections delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974), are applicable and the decision must be supported
by “some evidence.” Superintend., Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454
(1985); see also Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v.
Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000).
4.
Hudson was sanctioned for his misconduct in the challenged
proceeding with a period of time in disciplinary segregation. This sanction is noncustodial. Mamone v. United States, 559 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2009); Virsnieks v.
Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir. 2008); Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th
Cir. 2004). When no recognized liberty or property interest has been taken, which is
the case here, the confining authority “is free to use any procedures it choses, or no
procedures at all.” Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001).
5.
Because Hudson’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.

10/18/2012
Date: _________________
Distribution:
Christopher Hudson
Reg. No. 120501
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Rd
Pendleton, IN 46064

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