Opinion
3:23-CV-26-JD-MGG
01-23-2023
DARYL NEWMAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
JON E. DEGUILIO, CHIEF JUDGE
Daryl Newman, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the disciplinary decision (MCF-22-8-136) at the Miami Correctional Facility in which a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) found him guilty of possessing a cellphone in violation of Indiana Department of Correction Offense 121. Following a hearing, he was sanctioned with a loss of sixty days earned credit time and a demotion in credit class, but these sanctions were suspended and have not been imposed. 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). The loss of earned credit time and the demotion in credit class were not imposed, so the disciplinary proceedings have not increased the duration of Newman's sentence. Because Newman's claims do not relate to the fact or duration of his sentence, the court cannot grant him habeas relief.
If Newman 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 Daryl Newman leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED.