MOON v. LOCKETT
Entry and Order Directing Further Proceedings - The petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is granted. Petitioner Moon shall have through September 20, 2011, in which to file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus which coherently sets forth his claim(s) for relief. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/6/2011.(copy to petitioner via US mail) (VS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DARNELL WESLEY MOON,
Entry and Order Directing Further Proceedings
The petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis  is granted.
A federal court may issue the writ of habeas corpus sought in this action only if it
finds the applicant Ais in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 2241(c)(3). AA necessary predicate for the granting of
federal habeas relief [to a petitioner] is a determination by the federal court that [his or
her] custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.@ Rose vs.
Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Here, habeas petitioner Moon, a federal prisoner, is
correct that due process protections attend certain prison disciplinary proceedings.
Henderson v. United States Parole Comm'n, 13 F.3d 1073, 1077 (7th Cir. 1993). AA
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). The
right to due process in this setting is important and is well-defined. Due process requires
the issuance of advance written notice of the charges, a limited opportunity to present
evidence to an impartial decision-maker, a written statement articulating the reasons for
the disciplinary action and the evidence justifying it, and Asome evidence in the record@
to support the finding of guilt. See Superintend., Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,
454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564, 566, 570-71 (1974); Piggie v.
Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th
Moon challenges the disciplinary proceeding associated with what he has
identified as Incident Report No. 1968601. His challenge, however, is too vague to be
In view of the foregoing, petitioner Moon shall have through September 20,
2011, in which to file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus which
coherently sets forth his claim(s) for relief. He is obligated to do nothing less. Mayle v.
Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 661 (2005) (AHabeas Corpus Rule 2(c) . . . instructs petitioners to
>specify all available grounds for relief= and to >state the facts supporting each ground.=@).
By Aclaims@ as used in this setting are meant the recognized principles of law which, as
applied to the facts and circumstances of the challenged disciplinary proceeding, show
that proceeding to have been deficient or violative of the petitioner=s rights.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Darnell Wesley Moon
Terre Haute USP
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, 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?