Opinion
3:22-CV-1037-RLM-MGG
01-03-2023
KEVIN CHANDLER, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Kevin Chandler, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the disciplinary decision (ISP-22-9-94) at the Indiana State Prison in which a disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty of resisting in violation of Indiana Department of Correction Offense 235 and sanctioned him with disciplinary segregation but take away any earned credit time or demote Mr. Chandler in credit class. Pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the court must dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
“[A] habeas corpus petition must attack the fact or duration of one's sentence; if it does not, it does not state a proper basis for relief under § 2254.” Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1351 (7th Cir. 2009). Mr. Chandler did not lose earned credit time, receive a demotion in credit class, or receive any other sanction as a result of the disciplinary hearing that increased the duration of his sentence. Because Mr. Chandler's claims do not relate to the fact or duration of his sentence, the court cannot grant him habeas relief.
If Mr. Chandler 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 the court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal in this case could not be taken in good faith.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES the habeas corpus petition (ECF 1);
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and close this case; and
(3) DENIES Kevin Chandler leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED.