Deane v. Superintendent, No. 3:2017cv00617 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 8/28/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Deane v. Superintendent Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION STEPHEN M. DEANE, Petitioner, vs. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:17CV617-PPS OPINION AND ORDER Stephen M. Deane, a prisoner without an attorney, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 17-06-163) where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of filing a frivolous claim in violation of B-243 and sanctioned him with the loss of 30 days earned credit time on June 22, 2017. Deane does not dispute that the LaPorte Circuit Court dismissed his case and held that “[t]he Petitioner’s Claim is deemed frivolous under Ind. Code 3458-1-2(b).” Deane v. Neal, 46C01-1705-CT-873 (LaPorte Circuit Court June 9, 2017), available at https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/#/vw/CaseSummary/eyJ2Ijp7IkNhc2VUb2tlbiI6Ik5UUXhNa k15TnpFMU1qZ3dPall4TkRRMk5UY3lPV009In19. Rather, Deane merely argues that prison officials should not have read the court order sent to him by the LaPorte Circuit Court. This is incorrect. “[C]ommunications from courts [such as this one] are public documents, which the prison officials have as much right to read as the prisoner . . ..” Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 804 (7th Cir. Wis. 2010) (citations omitted). Indeed, that State court order is available on the internet at the web address above for anyone to read and I have attached a copy to this order as an exhibit. Because reading that State court order is not Dockets.Justia.com a basis for habeas corpus relief, the petition is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: August 28, 2017 /s/ Philip P. Simon Judge United States District Court 2 7102 /9 /6 S TA TE OF 51 :2 N A ND I A SC AN N ED PM NI ) TH E R C TIU I AL P O R TE CO URT ) :s C O U N TY OF AL P O R TE S TE P H E N D EAN E, DO C P ettoner ii , C O N UTIO U S ) 42 59 # ) g S U P NE R T E I N D E N T ) SP OR I N D ef endant . ) ) IL O F N GIF G R A N GR E D U O C NT I TI S SMD S I A I L O R D ER C 6 -C1-T — 873 410 507 C A U N S EO . ) R O N ‘AEN , L S TA TE 7102 ) Vs. N A ND I A TE R M , FE E S AN D C O M N P TA L I OF F ee W ai ver P l ntf, S T E P H E N ai if D EAN E, at i s an ofender con ned i t ndi f n he I ana S t e P ron, com m enced a pr ng d i ees oceedi i t s C our w ihouthavi pai lng f , ng n hi t t w ih hi pl ngs t s eadi a ceri t ed copy of s pronr t hi i tus s m ont pr hs oceedi hi ubm i ng s s i s on P ettoners ii ’ of s petton, hi ii lng f pur ant t nd. C ode i ees u s oI § W VE S AI t C our H E R E BY he t ted ng s and havi ubm it s at or he s x ) 6 f und accountt em ent f t i ( t C our, her he t eby F U Y L W VE S AI 33- - 3© . 37 3- ii ’ H avi ng consi ed P ettoners pronr t der i tus s 33— 37- 3(, 3— c) havi ng nd. C ode I f und accountt em ent i lghtof s at n i t entr flng f r he ie ii ee equied t t s C our. r o hi t D i il ma s s ii ’ T he C our, havi r ew ed P ettoners ng evi t ofC om pl nt ai 85 1 u s oI petton pur ant t nd. C ode 34- -, 2 ii nds: i l and i f . n aw n act . 1 T he P ettoners ii ’ Cl m ai l acks an ar guabl basi e s . 2 ii ’ T he P ettoners Cl m ai 8 -b) 5 12 i deem ed fi ous under I s rvol nd. C ode 34- -( . ii ’ 3. T he P ettoners Cl m ai oceed under nd. I m ay notpr 5 -a) 12 C ode 34— 8-( . now § TI SI TH E R E FO R E o O R D ER ED s CC: St ephen D eane, , 4 2 5 9 # F ie C l k l er ro j gor // M 7102 /9 /6 51 :2 PM SC AN N ED ’ t t P ettoners hat he ii O R D ER ED petton t i her S SMD S I E I D . ii o s eby 7102 on t s t ‘ day of hi he 9 h June, . HO N. J.A E L VI S ZO Judge TH O M A S ndi I ana S t e P ron, at i s 1 P ar R ow , k M i gan C iy, N I chi t 30 6 64
]]>
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.
