BOWLES v. BROWN

Filing 4

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The 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. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/8/2013.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA’
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
DENNIS BOWLES,
Petitioner,
vs.
RICHARD BROWN, Superintendent,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 2:13-cv-100-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
This cause is before the court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Dennis
Bowles.
AFederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears
legally insufficient on its face.@ McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). This authority is
conferred by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts,
which provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly
appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and
cause the petitioner to be notified.” See Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993).
This is an appropriate case for such a disposition.
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(a) only if
it finds the applicant Ais in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.@ Id. Bowles is confined at an Indiana prison and seeks review of and relief from a
disciplinary proceeding in which he was sanctioned with a written reprimand and 15 days of

commissary restrictions. These sanctions were non-custodial. Mamone v. United States, 559 F.3d
1209 (11th Cir. 2009); Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir. 2008). A sanction which
does not constitute Acustody@ cannot be challenged in an action for habeas corpus relief. See
Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004); Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641,
644-45 (7th Cir. 2001).
Because Bowles’ 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. Judgment consistent with this
Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

05/08/2013
Date: _________________
Distribution:
Dennis Bowles
No. 920522
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana