Armstrong v. Warden, No. 3:2019cv00257 - Document 8 (N.D. Ind. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING the habeas corpus petition. The clerk is DIRECTEDto enter judgment and close this case. Andrew Armstrong is DENIED leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 6/25/19. (Copy mailed to pro se party by cert mail 7018 0360 0001 4183 7838)(mlc)

Download PDF
Armstrong v. Warden Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ANDREW ARMSTRONG, Petitioner, v. CAUSE NO.: 3:19-CV-257-PPS-MGG WARDEN, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Andrew Armstrong, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge a prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 19-01-0039) where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of Fighting in violation of Indiana Department of Correction offense C-372. He did not lose any earned credit time – nor was he demoted in credit class – as a result of this hearing. A prison disciplinary hearing 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). Therefore, habeas corpus relief is not available in this case. If Armstrong wants to appeal this decision, he does not need a certificate of appealability because he is challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. See Evans v. Circuit Court, 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009). However, he may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) an appeal in this case could not be taken in good faith. Dockets.Justia.com For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case. Andrew Armstrong is DENIED leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED on June 25, 2019. /s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, 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.