DOOLEY v. SUPERINTENDENT, No. 1:2017cv01620 - Document 4 (S.D. Ind. 2017)
Court Description: Entry Granting Petitioner's 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - This petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court. (Copy sent to Petitioner via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/19/2017. (JDC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DOOLEY v. SUPERINTENDENT Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DORRIS L Y DOOLEY IWP16090033, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, vs. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. No. 1:17-cv-01620-WTL-MPB Entry Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus I. The request to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt.[2], is granted. II. Petitioner Dorris Dooley has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding held on September 21, 2016, in which she was found guilty of disorderly conduct. For the reasons stated below, this petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court. Discussion Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) Dockets.Justia.com only if it finds the applicant “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Id. “A prisoner challenging the process he was afforded in a prison disciplinary proceeding must meet two requirements: (1) he has a liberty or property interest that the state has interfered with; and (2) the procedures he was afforded upon that deprivation were constitutionally deficient.” Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). If a habeas petitioner has suffered the deprivation of a protected liberty interest the procedural protections delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974), are applicable and the decision must be supported by “some evidence.” Superintend. Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); see also Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2003); Webb v. Anderson, 224 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2000). In order to proceed, Dooley must meet the “in custody” requirement of § 2254(a). Meeting this requirement is a matter of jurisdictional significance. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam). “[T]he inquiry into whether a petitioner has satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites for habeas review requires a court to judge the ‘severity’ of an actual or potential restraint on liberty.” Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874, 894 (2d Cir. 1996). A sanction which does not constitute “custody” cannot be challenged in an action for habeas corpus relief. Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001). Dooley alleges that she was not deprived of earned credit time or demoted in credit class. The sanctions against her are therefore non-custodial. See i.e., Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976) (stating that not every prison action that adversely affects the prisoner requires due process, such as a transfer to a substantially less agreeable prison and an unfavorable classification for rehabilitative programs). When no recognized liberty or property interest has been taken, which is the case here, the confining authority “is free to use any procedures it choses, or no procedures at all.” Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Dooley’s habeas petition shows on its face that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks, the action is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4. Judgement consistent with this Entry shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Date: 5/19/17 Distribution: DORRIS L Y DOOLEY 259567 INDIANA WOMENS PRISON INDIANA WOMENS PRISON Inmate Mail/Parcels 2596 Girls School Road Indianapolis, IN 46214 Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
]]>
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.
