From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lawrence v. Superintendent, New Castle Corr. Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Feb 2, 2015
Case No. 1:15-cv-00128-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:15-cv-00128-TWP-MJD

02-02-2015

JACKIE L. LAWRENCE, JR., Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, New Castle Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Distribution: JACKIE L. LAWRENCE, JR. 995645 NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels 1000 Van Nuys Road NEW CASTLE, IN 47362


Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment

I.

"[I]n all habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the successful petitioner must demonstrate that he 'is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'" Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 611 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). When a prison disciplinary proceeding results in a sanction which affects the expected duration of a prisoner=s confinement, typically through the deprivation of earned good-time credits or the demotion in credit earning class, the state may not deprive inmates of good-time credits without following constitutionally adequate procedures to ensure that the credits are not arbitrarily rescinded and habeas corpus is the proper remedy. Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004). Conversely, when no recognized liberty or property interest has been taken, the confining authority Ais free to use any procedures it choses, or no procedures at all.@ Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 2001).

Here, on October 29, 2014, petitioner Lawrence was sanctioned for misconduct at an Indiana prison, but was not sanctioned in a fashion which caused him to suffer the imposition of "custody" as just explained. He thus cannot obtain relief here. Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004)("State prisoners who want to raise a constitutional challenge to a[ ] . . . decision[ ] such as transfer to a new prison, administrative segregation, exclusion from prison programs, or suspension of privileges, must . . . employ [42 U.S.C.] ' 1983 or another statute authorizing damages or injunctions--when the decision may be challenged at all . . . .").

Lawrence's petition for writ of habeas corpus is therefore summarily denied and this action is dismissed.

II.

Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 2/2/2015

/s/_________

Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of Indiana
Distribution: JACKIE L. LAWRENCE, JR.
995645
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362


Summaries of

Lawrence v. Superintendent, New Castle Corr. Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Feb 2, 2015
Case No. 1:15-cv-00128-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2015)
Case details for

Lawrence v. Superintendent, New Castle Corr. Facility

Case Details

Full title:JACKIE L. LAWRENCE, JR., Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, New Castle…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Date published: Feb 2, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:15-cv-00128-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2015)

Citing Cases

Snyder's Appeal

— The Act of 1903 repeals by implication the Act of 1874: Hammond v. Aluminum Co., 261 Pa. 370; Murdoch v.…

Devine v. J. Lang Paper Co., Inc.

The express repeal of the Act of 1909 prior to final judgment abolished plaintiff's right of action…