KUNZ v. VANNATTA

Full title: JOSEPH KUNZ, Petitioner, v. JOHN VANNATTA, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

Date published: Jan 10, 2006

Case No. 3:05-CV-748-TS (N.D. Ind. Jan. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 3:05-CV-748-TS.

January 10, 2006

OPINION AND ORDER

THERESA SPRINGMANN, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner Joseph Kunz, a prisoner confined at the Miami Correctional Facility, submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, dealing with a prison disciplinary hearing. Mr. Kunz alleges that a prison disciplinary board found him guilty of refusing to give a urine sample and imposed a sanction of three months restriction from the telephone, commissary, and recreation, and one year without idle pay for refusing to submit to a urine screen.

The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause provides state prisoners a liberty interest in good time credits, and they cannot be deprived of good time credits without due process. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Because the loss of good time credits increases the duration of a prisoner's confinement, habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for a prisoner who has been deprived of good time credits or demoted in good time credit earning classification. Harris v. Duckworth, 909 F.2d 1057, 1058 (7th Cir. 1990). But the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause does not provide prisoners due process protections from sanctions that do not effect the duration of their confinement. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487, (1995) (distinguishing between a prison disciplinary sanction that will inevitably affect the duration of the inmate's sentence and sanctions that do not affect the duration of his sentence). Prisoners may not use 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge prison disciplinary sanctions that do not effect the duration of their confinement. Sylvester v. Hanks, 140 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 1998).

Because Mr. Kunz alleges only that he was placed on restriction and lost idle pay, he does not allege a sanction that is actionable under U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Kunz's petition for writ of habeas corpus must, therefore, be denied on its face based on Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court, which allows for the dismissal of a petition because it plainly appears from the face of this petition that the petition is not entitled to relief. See Dellenbach v. Hanks, 76 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this order, the court DISMISSES this petition.

SO ORDERED.