WILLIAMS v. WARDEN

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: January 13, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00319
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

SHAWN WILLIAMS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 2:19-cv-00319-JPH-MJD ) WARDEN, ) ) Respondent. )

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 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... .” /d. (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.” Jd. The action is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Williams’ motion to proceed, dkt. [9], 1s DENIED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/13/2020 S\amnu Patruck lbanlove James Patrick Hanlon Distribution: United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana SHAWN WILLIAMS 178128 WABASH VALLEY - CF WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels Electronic Service Participant — Court Only