MURANS v. SUPERINTENDENT

Filing 5

ENTRY Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -Therefore, the petitioner is not "in custody" under § 2254, and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/25/2017.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

NICHOLAS J. MURANS,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-01261-TWP-DML

Entry Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petitioner filed this habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding in
which he was found guilty. For the reasons stated below, this petition is denied and this action is
dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States
District Court. 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.”
“[I]n all habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the successful petitioner must
demonstrate that he ‘is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.’” Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 611 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). “It
is the custody itself that must violate the Constitution. Accordingly, prisoners who are not seeking
earlier or immediate release are not seeking habeas corpus relief.” Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d
1350, 1350 (7th Cir. 2009). In other words, “a habeas corpus petition must attack the fact or
duration of one’s sentence; if it does not, it does not state a proper basis for relief.” Id. Typically,
in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, this means that in order to be considered “in

custody,” the petitioner must have been deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d
637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), or of credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262
F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001). When such a sanction is not imposed, the prison disciplinary
officials are “free to use any procedures it chooses, or no procedures at all.” Id. at 644.
Here, the petitioner’s sanction did not include the loss of good-time credits or a demotion
in credit-class earning. Therefore, the petitioner is not “in custody” under § 2254, and his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to
Rule 4.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 4/25/2017

Distribution:
NICHOLAS J. MURANS
143690
PLAINFIELD - CF
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant - Court only