WALKER v. ZATECKY

Filing 8

ENTRY Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Because Mr. Walker's habeas petition shows 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. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/27/2017.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ANTONIO WALKER,
Petitioner,
vs.
DUSHAN ZATECKY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-00572-TWP-TAB

Entry Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
The petition of Antonio Walker for a writ of habeas corpus challenges his conviction in
disciplinary proceeding No. ISR16-10-0108. The petition is denied and this action is dismissed
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States
District Courts. 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 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to
notify the petitioner.” Rule 4; see also 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.

“[A] prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his confinement must seek

habeas corpus relief; a prisoner challenging a condition of his confinement, by contrast, must
seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004). This is

not a case in which the petitioner was deprived of earned credit time or was demoted to a lower
credit earning class. The sanction imposed for violating prison rules was six months in
disciplinary segregation. This segregation did not affect the fact or anticipated duration of Mr.
Walker’s confinement, and thus it is not sufficient to meet the “in custody” requirement of the
federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th
Cir. 2001).
4.

A sanction that does not subject an offender to “custody” cannot be challenged in

an action for habeas corpus relief. Cochran, 381 F.3d at 639. 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 chooses, or no procedures at all.” Montgomery, 262 F.3d at 644.
5.

Because Mr. Walker’s habeas petition shows 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.

Date: 3/27/2017
Distribution:
ANTONIO WALKER, 966766
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only