WILLIAMS v. WARDEN, No. 2:2019cv00319 - Document 10 (S.D. Ind. 2020)

Court Description: ENTRY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT - The action is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Williams motion to proceed, dkt. 9 , is DENIED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. See Order. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/13/2020. (KAA)

Download PDF
WILLIAMS v. WARDEN Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION SHAWN WILLIAMS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. No. 2:19-cv-00319-JPH-MJD ENTRY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT On July 18, 2019, the Court ordered Shawn Williams to show cause why his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. 3. Mr. Williams’ petition seeks relief from a prison disciplinary conviction and states that the only sanctions assessed against him included three months in restrictive housing and 45 days’ lost phone and commissary privileges. Dkt. 1 at 1. These sanctions did not deprive Mr. Williams of earned credit time or demote him in credit-earning class and therefore did not affect his “custody” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See dkt. 3. In response, Mr. Williams asserts that, at the time of this disciplinary proceeding, he was in Credit Class 3. Dkt. 4 at ¶ 2. A prisoner in Credit Class 3 does not earn credit time and must be free of major conduct reports for 90 days to be promoted to a higher credit-earning class. Id. at ¶¶ 2–3. Mr. Williams argues that the disciplinary conviction affected his custody because it reset his 90-day waiting period to begin earning credit time again. Id. at ¶ 4. Mr. Williams’ argument is foreclosed by controlling Seventh Circuit precedent. A disciplinary action that results in the denial of a future opportunity to earn an earlier release does 1 Dockets.Justia.com not affect an inmate’s custody in a manner that permits habeas review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Section 2254 “is the appropriate vehicle when prison officials have revoked good-time credits once earned . . . or lowered a previously established credit-earning classification . . . .” Id. (internal citations omitted). But habeas relief is not available unless the petitioner complains that a “benefit already conferred is taken away.” Id. Mr. Williams does not challenge a disciplinary action that deprived him of good-time credits or demoted him from a credit-earning class he had already earned. Instead, he challenges a disciplinary proceeding that may have delayed his promotion to a higher credit-earning class. This challenge does not raise an issue affecting his custody within the meaning of Section 2254. “[I]t plainly appears from” Mr. Williams’ petition and his response to the show-cause order “that [Mr. Williams] is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, § 4. Rule 4 requires the Court to “dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Id. The action is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Williams’ motion to proceed, dkt. [9], is DENIED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/13/2020 Distribution: SHAWN WILLIAMS 178128 WABASH VALLEY - CF WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels Electronic Service Participant – Court Only 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.