Winemiller v. Superintendent, No. 3:2017cv00530 - Document 2 (N.D. Ind. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner James Winemiller. The Petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 7/27/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)

Download PDF
Winemiller v. Superintendent Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION JAMES WINEMILLER, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:17CV530-PPS/MGG OPINION AND ORDER James Winemiller, a pro se prisoner, has filed a petition for habeas corpus attempting to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing (ISR 17-03-112) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance in violation of B-202. ECF 1 at 1. As a result, Winemiller was sanctioned with commissary and phone restrictions, and served time in segregation. ECF 1-1 at 3. Winemiller has not been deprived of a liberty interest 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 Winemiller’s sanctions did not effect 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. ACCORDINGLY: For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: July 27, 2017. /s/ Philip P. Simon Judge United States District Court 2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.