McGinty v. Warden, No. 3:2019cv00014 - Document 2 (N.D. Ind. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/23/19. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McGinty v. Warden Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION RAVEN McGINTY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-14-RLM-MGG OPINION AND ORDER Raven McGinty, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his disciplinary sanctions in case ISP 18-10-304 in which a Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty of possessing offensive materials in violation of Indiana Department of Correction policy B-246. He didn’t lose any earned credit time; he wasn’t demoted in credit class as a result of this disciplinary hearing. A prison disciplinary hearing can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding if it resulted in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Because this disciplinary hearing didn’t lengthen the duration of Mr. McGinty’s confinement, habeas corpus relief isn’t available in this case. For these reasons, the petition (ECF 1) is DENIED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. Dockets.Justia.com SO ORDERED on January 23, 2019 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 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.
