Pannell v. Superintendent, No. 3:2015cv00333 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by David Pannell pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 8/11/2015. (cc: Petitioner)(lns)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pannell v. Superintendent Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION DAVID PANNELL, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-333 WL OPINION AND ORDER David Pannell, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging ISP-14-04-0274, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Indiana State Prison. (DE 1.) On May 6, 2014, the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Unauthorized Possession, Destruction, Alteration, Damage, or Theft of Property Belonging to Another, in violation of B-215. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 30 days earned credit time, but the deprivation was suspended and has not yet been imposed. (DE 1 at 1, 14.) As such, he has not yet lost any earned credit time as a result of this hearing. A prison disciplinary action 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). Here, because this disciplinary proceeding did not result in the lengthening of the duration of his confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Because there is no relief that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition will be denied. If in the future the suspended sanction is imposed, then he may file another habeas corpus petition challenging this hearing. Dockets.Justia.com For these reasons, the petition is DENIED pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is dismissed without prejudice.(DE 1). ENTERED: August 11, 2015 s/William C. Lee William C. Lee, Judge 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.
