KAHLENBECK v. FINNAN - Document 4
ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Because Kahlenbeck's 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**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/27/2011.(JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JERRED SCOTT KAHLENBECK,
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
This cause is before the court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Jerred
“Federal 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 federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)
only if it finds the applicant “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.” Id. Kahlenbeck is confined at an Indiana prison and seeks review of
and relief from a disciplinary proceeding in which he was sanctioned with loss of contact
visitation and 3 months in disciplinary segregation. 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 “custody” cannot be
challenged in an action for habeas corpus relief. Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th
Cir. 2004); Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001).
Because Kahlenbeck’s 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.
Jerred Scott Kahlenbeck
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana