VAUGHN v. HANKS
ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Vaughn'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 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/20/2012. Copy Mailed.(JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ALLEN VAUGHN, JR.,
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Allen Vaughn, Jr., seeks a writ of habeas corpus to invalidate a prison
disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISR 12-08-0135. In the challenged
proceeding, Vaughn had been charged with and found guilty of violating a prison
rule prohibiting inmates from possessing intoxicants. Vaughn was sanctioned with
a written reprimand, the loss of his housing assignment, a period of loss of work
eligibility, the permanent loss of contact visits, and six months in disciplinary
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. In order to proceed, Vaughn 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).
The sanctions imposed on Vaughn in No. ISR 12-08-0135 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); 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 Ais free to use any procedures it choses, or no
procedures at all.@ Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001).
Because Vaughn’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 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Allen E. Vaughn, Jr.
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, 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?