Bowers v. Superintendent, No. 3:2017cv00251 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Joseph Bowers. The Petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 3/31/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bowers v. Superintendent Doc. 3 United States District Court Northern District of Indiana JOSEPH BOWERS, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-251 JVB OPINION AND ORDER Joseph Bowers, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging WCC 16-040707, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Westville Correctional Facility. On May 18, 2016, the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Trafficking in violation of A113. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of earned credit time and a demotion in credit class, but the deprivations were suspended until November 18, 2016, and have not been imposed. (DE 2 at 1.) As such, he has not lost (and will not lose) any earned credit time as a result of this hearing. Bowers filed this habeas action in an effort to vacate his disciplinary conviction and expunge his administrative record. However, 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). 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). Here, because this disciplinary proceeding did not result in the lengthening of the duration of his confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Not only did the disciplinary proceeding not lengthen the duration of confinement, but Dockets.Justia.com it could not, since the suspended sanction expired on November 18, 2016. Because there is no relief that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition will be denied. For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition (DE 2) pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is dismissed without prejudice. SO ORDERED on March 31, 2017. s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen Joseph S. Van Bokkelen United States District Judge Hammond Division 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.
