Merritt v. Superintendent, No. 3:2017cv00105 - Document 2 (N.D. Ind. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The petition is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 2/16/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

Download PDF

Merritt v. Superintendent Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION Omar Merritt, Petitioner, v. Case No. 3:17-CV-105 JVB Superintendent, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Omar Merritt, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking monetary compensation for a prison disciplinary hearing which was overturned on appeal. In MCF 15-09444 he was found guilty by a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) at the Miami Correctional Facility of possessing a dangerous device in violation of A-106. He was sanctioned with the loss of 120 days Earned Credit Time and demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. However, all of this was overturned during his administrative appeals. So the duration of his confinement has not been lengthened by that proceeding. A prison disciplinary hearing can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it results in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Though he argues that he lost his job and other privileges because of the charges, that is not cognizable in a habeas corpus case. See Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2004). For these reasons, the petition is DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED on February 16, 2017. Dockets.Justia.com s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.