GOLDEN v. SUPERINTENDANT
ENTRY - The undisputed record reflects that sanctions imposed in case No. IYC 17-05- 0084 did not affect the duration of Mr. Golden custody, the respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss, dkt. 7 , must be granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/19/2017. (MEJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SUPERINTENDANT Plainfield Correctional
Entry Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
In this habeas action, petitioner DeJuan Golden challenges a prison disciplinary
conviction for resisting, offense B-235, in case No. IYC 17-05-0084. The petitioner was found
guilty on May 20, 2017, and sanctions of a written reprimand, extra work duty, the loss of phone,
JPay, and commissary privileges, and 90 days suspended in restrictive housing, were imposed.
Mr. Golden alleges in his petition that he was sanctioned with the suspended loss of 90
days of earned credit time and a demotion in credit class, but the record does not support this
contention. Dkt. 2, pp. 1, 4; dkt. 7-1. The suspended 90 day sanction related to restrictive
housing, not earned credit time or credit class. Dkt. 2, p. 4; dkt. 7-1. The respondent seeks
dismissal of the action because the petitioner’s sanctions did not affect the fact or anticipated
duration of his confinement and thus they are 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, 64445 (7th Cir. 2001). Mr. Golden has not opposed the motion to dismiss.
Here, because there was no loss of earned credit time or credit class, no sanction affected
the fact or duration of Mr. Golden’s confinement. “Section 2254 requires that the petitioner be
‘in custody.’” Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Smith v. Wilson, 264
Fed.Appx. 503, 504 (7th Cir. Feb. 6, 2008) (“Section 2254 provides the exclusive avenue for
federal relief of constitutional violations when those violations result in a loss of good-time
credit or a reduction in the rate of earning good-time credit.”); Montgomery, 262 F.3d at 643
(“But only the change in credit-earning class may be challenged under § 2254. Disciplinary
segregation affects the severity rather than duration of custody.”). Because the undisputed record
reflects that sanctions imposed in case No. IYC 17-05-0084 did not affect the duration of Mr.
Golden custody, the respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss, dkt. , must be granted.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Electronically registered counsel
DEJUAN GOLDEN, 953611
PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
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?