Anthony Bellanti v. Warden

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00621
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ANTHONY BELLANTI,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-621-GSL-APR

WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Anthony Bellanti, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas petition challenging a disciplinary decision (ISP-24-4-936) at the Indiana State Prison in which a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) found him guilty of interfering with staff in violation of Indiana Department of Correction Offense 252. According to the petition, he was sanctioned with a loss of earned credit time and a demotion in credit class. In the pending motion to dismiss, the Warden argues that this case is moot because he was not sanctioned with a demotion in credit class and because the earned credit time sanction was suspended and can no longer be imposed. ECF 8. The Warden supports this argument with a hearing report and sentence calculation printouts. ECF 8- 4, ECF 8-9. Consequently, the court finds that the claims raised in the petition are moot. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary determination in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of his confinement). Though Bellanti responds that he continues to seek the expungement of this disciplinary finding from departmental records, the court cannot grant any relief in a habeas case on grounds that do not relate to the fact or duration of confinement. Nor is his inability to participate in educational

programs a sufficient basis to obtain habeas relief. See Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000) (“The denial of access to educational programs does not infringe on a protected liberty interest.”). Therefore, the court grants the motion and dismisses the habeas petition. If Bellanti 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 the court finds that an appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal in this case could not be taken in good faith. For these reasons, the court: (1) GRANTS the motion to dismiss (ECF 8);

(2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and to close this case; and (3) DENIES Anthony Bellanti leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED on November 17, 2025

/s/Gretchen S. Lund JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT