Huff v. Sheriff

N.D. Indiana

Huff v. Sheriff

DecidedDecember 2, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-00942

StatusUnknown

This text of Huff v. Sheriff (Huff v. Sheriff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huff v. Sheriff, (N.D. Ind. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MICHAEL ALLEN HUFF,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:24-CV-942-CCB-SJF

SHERIFF,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Michael Allen Huff, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging a disciplinary hearing at the Pulaski County Jail in which a disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty of destruction of property. As a result, he was sanctioned with thirty days in segregation. Pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the court must dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” “[A] habeas corpus petition must attack the fact or duration of one’s sentence; if it does not, it does not state a proper basis for relief under § 2254.” Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1351 (7th Cir. 2009). According to the petition, Huff was sanctioned with segregation when he was already confined at the Pulaski County Jail, so the disciplinary hearing did not increase the duration of his sentence. Because Huff’s claims do not relate to the fact or duration of his sentence, the court cannot grant him habeas relief. If Huff 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 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) DENIES the habeas corpus petition (ECF 1); (2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and close this case; and (3) DENIES Michael Allen Huff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED on December 2, 2024.

s/ Cristal C. Brisco JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MICHAEL ALLEN HUFF,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:24-CV-942-CCB-SJF

SHERIFF,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Michael Allen Huff, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging a disciplinary hearing at the Pulaski County Jail in which a disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty of destruction of property. As a result, he was sanctioned with thirty days in segregation. Pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the court must dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” “[A] habeas corpus petition must attack the fact or duration of one’s sentence; if it does not, it does not state a proper basis for relief under § 2254.” Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1351 (7th Cir. 2009). According to the petition, Huff was sanctioned with segregation when he was already confined at the Pulaski County Jail, so the disciplinary hearing did not increase the duration of his sentence. Because Huff’s claims do not relate to the fact or duration of his sentence, the court cannot grant him habeas relief. If Huff 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 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) DENIES the habeas corpus petition (ECF 1); (2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and close this case; and (3) DENIES Michael Allen Huff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED on December 2, 2024.

s/ Cristal C. Brisco JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Huff v. Sheriff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huff-v-sheriff-innd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack