YOUNG v. SMITH et al

Filing 8

ENTRY dismissing complaint and directing further proceedings. The petitioner shall have through 11/15/2013 in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry shall not issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/29/2013 (copy sent to Randal Young)(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

RANDAL YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRIAN SMITH, JASON GEIGER,
JULIE CUNNINGHAM, CHARLES
PENFOLD, JOHN DOE within the Indiana
Department of Corrections,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-01606-TWP-DKL

Entry Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Randal Young (“Mr. Young”) an inmate at the Plainfield Correctional Facility
(“Plainfield”) filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is
now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This statute directs that the
court must dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which “(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. For the reasons explained below, the
complaint is dismissed pursuant to § 1915A(b).
Mr. Young sues four Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) employees for their
role in the disciplinary hearing and appeals process at Plainfield. Specifically, Mr. Young alleges
that IDOC has an unconstitutional policy that discriminates against offenders for using “money
pack numbers” or “e-money” instead of traditional paper currency. He explains that offenders
caught with currency or paper money are charged with “possession of currency” a Class C minor

Offense while offenders caught with money pack numbers or e-money are charged with
“engaging in an unauthorized financial transaction” a Class B Major Offense. Mr. Young states
that money pack numbers are a form of currency and qualify as a negotiable instrument under the
Uniform Commercial Code and he therefore has a liberty interest in receiving and possessing
“money pack” numbers. He seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
Mr. Young explains that he was found guilty in two disciplinary actions of engaging in an
unauthorized financial transaction as a result of his possession of money pack numbers. In each
case he was sanctioned with 60 days deprivation of earned credit time (a total of 120 days). See
dkt. 6. The claims against Defendant’s Brian Smith, Jason Geiger, Julie Cunningham, and
Charles Penfold relate indirectly to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Mr. Young
and are necessarily based on actions which resulted in the imposition of a sanction which
lengthened the anticipated duration of Mr. Young’s confinement.
The settled law is that when a prisoner makes a claim that, if successful, could shorten his
term of imprisonment, the claim must be brought as a habeas petition, not as a ' 1983 claim.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (extending
Heck to the decisions of prison disciplinary tribunals); Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th
Cir. 2004). Because good-time credits are affected by the actions challenged in this law suit, Mr.
Young’s claims must be “construed as seeking a judgment at odds with . . . [prison authorities’]
calculation of time to be served in accordance with the underlying sentence.” Muhammad v.
Close, 540 U.S. 749, 754-55 (2004). The challenge to any disciplinary proceeding here, whether
direct or indirect, is premature. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 643-49.
The claims for declaratory and injunctive relief must be dismissed, though they shall be
dismissed without prejudice in order to permit Mr. Young to challenge the administrative

deprivation of good time credits or other actions which have affected the anticipated duration of
his confinement by seeking habeas corpus relief in an appropriate civil action.
The petitioner shall have through November 15, 2013, in which to show cause why
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall not issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/29/2013
Date: __________________

Distribution:
RANDAL YOUNG
DOC # 139527
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
727 MOON ROAD
PLAINFIELD, IN 46168

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