DIXON v. CARAWAY
Entry Directing Further Proceedings - The request to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is granted. A copy of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus shall be included with the petitioner's copy of this Entry. The petitioner shall have through November 26, 2012, in which to file an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/13/2012. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
LENARD CHAUNCY DIXON,
J.F. CARAWAY, Warden,
Entry Directing Further Proceedings
The request to proceed in forma pauperis  is granted.
A copy of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus shall be included with
the petitioner’s copy of this Entry.
Based on the fact that notice pleading does not suffice in an action for habeas
corpus relief, see Lloyd v. Van Natta, 296 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2002), the
petitioner shall have through November 26, 2012, in which to file an amended
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The amended petition shall set forth all the
claims he intends to present and the basis for each. See 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@ it is meant the recognized principles of law which, as applied to the facts
and circumstances of the challenged proceeding, show that challenged proceeding to
have been deficient or violative of the petitioner=s rights.
In connection with the foregoing, the petitioner is notified of the following. 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 “some 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 Cir. 2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lenard Chauncy Dixon
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?