Love v. Warden, No. 3:2019cv00721 - Document 5 (N.D. Ind. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES the amended petition 4 pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and DISMISSES the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 10/28/2019. (Copy mailed to pro se party certified #7099 3400 0003 4511 6657)(shk)

Download PDF

Love v. Warden Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION TONY LOVE, Petitioner, v. CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-721-DRL-MGG WARDEN, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Tony Love, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended habeas corpus petition challenging his disciplinary sanctions in case WCU 18-11-237 where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty of assaulting a prison officer and staff member in violation of Indiana Department of Correction policy A-102. ECF 4 at 1. However, Mr. Love did not lose any earned credit time, nor was he demoted in credit class as a result of this disciplinary hearing. ECF 4 at 1; 4-1 at 6. 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). Here, because this disciplinary hearing did not result in the lengthening of the duration of Mr. Love’s confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Accordingly, since there is no relief that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition will be denied. For these reasons, the court DENIES the amended petition (ECF 4) pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and DISMISSES the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. October 28, 2019 s/ Damon R. Leichty 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.