Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-854-DRL-MGG
08-24-2020
DeANDRE HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
OPINION & ORDER
DeAndre Hamilton, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 19-07-262) where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of Destruction of State Property in violation of Indiana Department of Correction offense B-215 on August 6, 2019. ECF 1. However, he was not punished with either the loss of earned credit time or a demotion in credit class.
A prison disciplinary action can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding when it results in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Because the duration of his confinement was not lengthened as a result of this prison disciplinary proceeding, this case must be dismissed.
If Mr. Hamilton 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, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal in this case could not be taken in good faith. Nevertheless, if he files a notice of appeal, he may ask the United States Court of Appeals for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by filing a motion with the circuit court along with a copy of this order demonstrating that he has already been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis here.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES the habeas corpus petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4;
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment; and
(3) DENIES the Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED.
August 24, 2020
s/ Damon R . Leichty
Judge, United States District Court