Opinion
Cause No. 3:17-cv-20
01-09-2017
GREGORY KONRATH, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Gregory Konrath, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge a prison disciplinary hearing where he was found guilty of Insolent Behavior in violation of Code No. 348 by a disciplinary hearing officer ("DHO") at the Westville Correctional Facility. (DE 1 at 1.) He neither lost earned credit time nor was demoted in credit class as a result of this hearing. (Id.) A prison disciplinary hearing can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it results in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Therefore, habeas corpus relief is not available in this case.
This is not news to Konrath. Before he signed this habeas corpus petition on December 23, 2016, he had already been told at least three times that habeas corpus relief is not available unless he is challenging a disciplinary proceeding that has extended his earliest possible release date. See Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr. Facility, No. 3:16-cv-805 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 7, 2016) (DE 4); Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr. Facility, No. 3:16-cv-839 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 12, 2016) (DE 2); Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr. Facility, No. 3:16-cv-852 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2016) (DE 2).
Nor is this Konrath's first time around the block with meritless habeas corpus petitions that are a supreme waste of judicial resources. In Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:17-cv-18 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2017), he challenged the same prison disciplinary hearing he'd already raised in Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Correctional Facility, 3:16-cv-878 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2016), even though his claims remained unexhausted. Similarly, in Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:17-cv-017 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2017), he challenged the same disciplinary hearing underlying Konrath v. Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:16-cv-809 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 25, 2016), even though he had not been authorized to file a successive petition by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. And in Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:17-cv-19 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2017), he challenged a prison disciplinary hearing that did not result in the loss of any earned credit time, even though he had already challenged that same hearing in two different habeas cases. See Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr. Facility, No. 3:16-cv-839 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2016); Konrath v. Superintendent, Westville Corr. Facility, No. 3:16-cv-879 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2016).
Konrath is an abusive litigator. He has already been restricted from filing civil cases other than habeas corpus cases. See Konrath v. Unity Healthcare, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-9 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 5, 2017) (DE 5). And his meritless habeas corpus filings are just as much of a drain on judicial resources. "Federal courts have both the inherent power and constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions." In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 n. 8 (1989) (quoting In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F. 2d 1254 (2nd Cir. 1984)). And litigants who abuse the judicial process can be restricted from filing new cases and can be sanctioned. Free v. United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989).
Therefore, if Konrath continues filing meritless and repetitious habeas corpus petitions, he may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted from filing any habeas corpus case other than one challenging his criminal conviction. See generally Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 957 (7th Cir. 2004) (fining two abusive habeas corpus filers $500 each and directing the clerks of federal courts to "return unfiled any papers submitted . . . in any habeas corpus action unless the petition attacks a state court imposed criminal judgment" until the filers had paid all outstanding fees and sanctions).
For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED and Gregory Konrath is CAUTIONED that if he persists filing meritless habeas corpus petitions, he may be subject to further restrictions, fines, and sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 9, 2017.
s/ Philip P. Simon
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT