KLEIMAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

S.D. Indiana

KLEIMAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

DecidedJune 27, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00276

StatusUnknown

This text of KLEIMAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA (KLEIMAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

KLEIMAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, (S.D. Ind. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

MAXIMILLIAN P. KLEIMAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00276-JPH-MKK ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PETITIONER Maximillian Kleiman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging disciplinary proceeding ISF-24-12-003279, which occurred at Putnamville Correctional Facility on January 9, 2025. Dkt. 1. He notes that his discipline included a written reprimand and a loss of contact visits for 6 months. Id.; see also dkt. 1-1 at 3 (reflecting a 30-day loss of commissary privileges). For the below reasons, the Court orders Mr. Kleiman to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. I. Discussion A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 "only on the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A prison discipline proceeding affects an inmate's "custody" if it results in a deprivation of earned good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), or a demotion in credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001). Mr. Kleiman's petition indicates that his disciplinary proceeding has not affected his custody for purposes of § 2254 because he has not been deprived of earned good-time credits or demoted in credit-earning class. Thus, the Court must dismiss Mr. Kleiman's petition for lack of jurisdiction over the matter. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States ("If 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."). Accordingly, Mr. Kleiman's petition, dkt. 1, is dismissed, and Mr. Kleiman shall have through July 28, 2025, to show cause why this entire action should not be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction. Failure to respond in the time allotted will result in the dismissal of this action without further warning or opportunity to show cause. SO ORDERED. Sjamu Patrick hawlove Date: 6/27/2025 James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: MAXIMILLIAN P. KLEIMAN 283292 PUTNAMVILLE - CF PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 1946 West U.S. Hwy 40 Greencastle, IN 46135

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

MAXIMILLIAN P. KLEIMAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00276-JPH-MKK ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PETITIONER Maximillian Kleiman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging disciplinary proceeding ISF-24-12-003279, which occurred at Putnamville Correctional Facility on January 9, 2025. Dkt. 1. He notes that his discipline included a written reprimand and a loss of contact visits for 6 months. Id.; see also dkt. 1-1 at 3 (reflecting a 30-day loss of commissary privileges). For the below reasons, the Court orders Mr. Kleiman to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. I. Discussion A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 "only on the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A prison discipline proceeding affects an inmate's "custody" if it results in a deprivation of earned good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), or a demotion in credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001). Mr. Kleiman's petition indicates that his disciplinary proceeding has not affected his custody for purposes of § 2254 because he has not been deprived of earned good-time credits or demoted in credit-earning class. Thus, the Court must dismiss Mr. Kleiman's petition for lack of jurisdiction over the matter. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States ("If 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."). Accordingly, Mr. Kleiman's petition, dkt. 1, is dismissed, and Mr. Kleiman shall have through July 28, 2025, to show cause why this entire action should not be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction. Failure to respond in the time allotted will result in the dismissal of this action without further warning or opportunity to show cause. SO ORDERED. Sjamu Patrick hawlove Date: 6/27/2025 James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: MAXIMILLIAN P. KLEIMAN 283292 PUTNAMVILLE - CF PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 1946 West U.S. Hwy 40 Greencastle, IN 46135

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

KLEIMAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleiman-v-the-attorney-general-of-the-state-of-indiana-insd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack