VAUGHN v. HANKS

Filing 3

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA ALLEN VAUGHN, JR., Petitioner, vs. CRAIG HANKS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:12-cv-1578-TWP-TAB 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 segregation. 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. 11/20/2012 Date: __________________ Distribution: Allen E. Vaughn, Jr. DOC #103933 Pendleton Correctional Facility Inmate Mail/Parcels 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?