DOOLEY v. SUPERINTENDENT
Entry Granting Petitioner's 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 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. (Copy sent to Petitioner via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/19/2017. (JDC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DORRIS L Y DOOLEY IWP16090033,
Entry Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and
Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The request to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt., is granted.
Petitioner Dorris Dooley has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a
prison disciplinary proceeding held on September 21, 2016, in which she was found guilty of
disorderly conduct. 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.” 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.
“A prisoner challenging the process he was afforded in a prison disciplinary proceeding
must meet two requirements: (1) he has a liberty or property interest that the state has interfered
with; and (2) the procedures he was afforded upon that deprivation were constitutionally
deficient.” Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). If a habeas petitioner has
suffered the deprivation of a protected liberty interest the procedural protections delineated in
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974), are applicable and the decision must be supported
by “some evidence.” Superintend. Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); see also
Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th
In order to proceed, Dooley 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). “[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. 1996). A sanction which does not constitute “custody” cannot be challenged in an
action for habeas corpus relief. Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001).
Dooley alleges that she was not deprived of earned credit time or demoted in credit class.
The sanctions against her are therefore non-custodial. See i.e., Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88
n. 9 (1976) (stating that not every prison action that adversely affects the prisoner requires due
process, such as a transfer to a substantially less agreeable prison and an unfavorable
classification for rehabilitative programs). 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
choses, or no procedures at all.” Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001).
Because Dooley’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. Judgement consistent with this
Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DORRIS L Y DOOLEY
INDIANA WOMENS PRISON
INDIANA WOMENS PRISON
2596 Girls School Road
Indianapolis, IN 46214
Hon. William T. Lawrence, 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?