Opinion
1:22-cv-00414-JPH-DML
07-07-2022
JASON D. PENNINGER, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM HYATT, Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
James Patrick Hanlon, United States District Judge
Petitioner Jason D. Penninger filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a June 9, 2021, Miami Correctional Facility disciplinary proceeding identified as MCF 21-05-0343. Dkts. 2 and 8-1. The Court directed the respondent to show cause why the writ should not issue. Dkt. 5. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, dkt. 8, and a brief in support, dkt. 9. As of the date of this Order, Mr. Penninger has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
I. Discussion
Respondent argues that Mr. Penninger is not "in custody" for purposes of habeas relief under Section 2254 because he only received a written reprimand and a 30-day loss of commissary privileges. Dkt. 9 at 1.
"[I]n all habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the successful petitioner must demonstrate that he 'is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'" Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 611 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). "It is the custody itself that must violate the Constitution. Accordingly, prisoners who are not seeking earlier or immediate release are not seeking habeas corpus relief." Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1350 (7th Cir. 2009). In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, this means that to be considered "in custody," the petitioner must have been deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), or of credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001). When such a sanction is not imposed, the prison disciplinary officials are "free to use any procedures [they] choose[], or no procedures at all." Id. at 644.
The Court reviewed the Report of Disciplinary Hearing in this matter and finds it supports Respondent's contention that Mr. Penninger was not denied good-time credits or credit-earning class. Dkt. 8-4.
II. Conclusion
Accordingly, Respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. [8], must be granted. Mr. Penninger's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Final Judgment in accordance with this decision shall now issue.
SO ORDERED.