Muhammad v. Superintendent, No. 3:2017cv00582 - Document 2 (N.D. Ind. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Akeem A Muhammad. The Petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 7/31/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Muhammad v. Superintendent Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION AKEEM A. MUHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:17-cv-582-JD-MGG OPINION AND ORDER Akeem A. Muhammad, a pro se prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 17-03-413) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of threatening another in violation of B-213. ECF 1 at 1. However, he did not lose any earned credit time, and was not demoted in credit class. As such, he has not yet 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 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. For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: July 31, 2017 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO Judge United States District Court Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
