Pavey v. Warden

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER R. PAVEY,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-318-PPS-AZ

WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Christopher R. Pavey, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas petition challenging a disciplinary decision (ISP-23-11-3298) at the Indiana State Prison in which a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) found him guilty of unauthorized possession of property under Indiana Department of Correction Offense 215. He was sanctioned with a loss of ninety days credit time, but the sanction was suspended and can no longer be imposed. Pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, I 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, no sanction affecting the duration of Pavey’s sentence, such as a loss of earned credit time or a credit class demotion, was imposed. Because Pavey’s claims do not relate to the fact or duration of his sentence, I cannot grant him habeas relief. If Pavey 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 I find 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 2); (2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and close this case; and

(3) DENIES Christopher R. Pavey leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED on April 16, 2025.

/s/ Philip P. Simon JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT