Stanton v. Indiana Dept of Corr NCCF, No. 3:2007cv00284 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2007)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Judge James T Moody on 7/3/07. (kds)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stanton v. Indiana Dept of Corr NCCF Doc. 3 case 3:07-cv-00284-JTM document 3 filed 07/03/2007 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION CHRISTOPHER P. STANTON, Petitioner, vs. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORR. NCCF, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:07 CV 284 OPINION AND ORDER Christopher P. Stanton, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge his loss of good time credits and his demotion in credit class imposed on May 9, 2007 by the Disciplinary Hearing Board at the New Castle Correctional Facility for disobeying a direct order of a staff in violation of C-347. If 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. Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. Mr. Stanton states that he has not received a reply from his appeal to the superintendent in a little more than a month and that he has not yet appealed to the Final Reviewing Authority. Because of this, he has not yet exhausted these claims. [T]o exhaust a claim, and thus preserve it for collateral review under § 2254, a prisoner must present that legal theory to the . . . Final Reviewing Authority . . .. Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002). Because he has not yet exhausted these claims, this court may not grant him any relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). Dockets.Justia.com case 3:07-cv-00284-JTM document 3 filed 07/03/2007 page 2 of 2 For the foregoing reasons, this petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. ENTER: July 3, 2007 s/James T. Moody JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
