Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-251 JVB
03-31-2017
JOSEPH BOWERS, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Joseph Bowers, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging WCC 16-04-0707, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Westville Correctional Facility. On May 18, 2016, the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Trafficking in violation of A-113. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of earned credit time and a demotion in credit class, but the deprivations were suspended until November 18, 2016, and have not been imposed. (DE 2 at 1.) As such, he has not lost (and will not lose) any earned credit time as a result of this hearing.
Bowers filed this habeas action in an effort to vacate his disciplinary conviction and expunge his administrative record. However, a prison disciplinary action 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). Though he argues that he lost his job and other privileges because of the charges, that is not cognizable in a habeas corpus case. See Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2004). Here, because this disciplinary proceeding did not result in the lengthening of the duration of his confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Not only did the disciplinary proceeding not lengthen the duration of confinement, but it could not, since the suspended sanction expired on November 18, 2016. Because there is no relief that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition will be denied.
For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the petition (DE 2) pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4 and this case is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED on March 31, 2017.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division