Opinion
CAUSE NO.: 3:18-CV-353-PPS-MGG
11-16-2018
KENNY FUTCH, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Kenny Futch, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his prison disciplinary case MCF 16-05-159. The Warden filed a motion to dismiss Futch's petition on October 26, 2018. ECF 14. Futch filed a response to the motion to dismiss on November 13, 2018. ECF 16. Thus, the motion is fully briefed.
On May 18, 2016, Futch pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of food items in violation of C-307. ECF 14-2. As a result, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) sanctioned him with a written reprimand. Id. The Warden has now moved to dismiss Futch's petition on the basis that he did not suffer any grievous loss which would impact the length of his sentence and is therefore not entitled to habeas corpus relief. ECF 14 at 1-2, ECF 15 at 1-2. Futch implies he has lost earned credit time as a result of this hearing, but he has not provided either an explanation of when and how this happened or any evidence to support that claim. See ECF 16 at 1-6.
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). Here, because there is no evidence this disciplinary action resulted in the lengthening of the duration of Futch's confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available.
For these reasons, the Warden's motion to dismiss (ECF 14) is GRANTED and Futch's petition (ECF 1) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 16, 2018
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT