Tucker v. Superintendent, No. 3:2010cv00277 - Document 10 (N.D. Ind. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: DISMISSING this petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 11/9/10. (jld)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION WILLIE TUCKER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner v. SUPERINTENDENT, INDIANA STATE PRISON, Respondent. No. 3:10cv277 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court sua sponte pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 4 requires the Court to review a habeas corpus petition, and dismiss it if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief . . . This rule provides the Court with a gatekeeping responsibility to sift through habeas corpus petitions and dismiss those petitions which obviously lack merit. For the reasons set forth below, the Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS this petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. BACKGROUND Petitioner Willie Tucker, a prisoner confined at the Indiana State Prison, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to disciplinary 28 U.S.C. hearing § board 2254. According ( DHB ) found to the Tucker petition, guilty of a a disciplinary infraction and imposed a sanction on him. Subsequently, an administrative board also imposed a loss of contact visitation on him for a period of one year as a result of the DHB s finding of guilt. Tucker challenges the loss of contact visitation. DISCUSSION Tucker filed this habeas corpus petition explicitly challenging his one year loss of visiting privileges imposed on July 6, 2009, by the Indiana Department of Corrections. He specifically states in his petition that the Petitioner was denied Due Process when: the Defendants illegally imposed the sanction of (DOC) policy 02-01-102, loss of contact visiting privileges, without proof that the Petitioner actually violated a facility rule while in the visiting area. The Petitioner was found guilty of a conduct report that had nothing to do with the visiting area. (DE 1 at 3). A prison disciplinary action can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it lengthens the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). 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 2 that will inevitably affect the duration of the inmate s sentence and sanctions that do not affect the duration of his sentence). The DHB did not impose the loss of contact visitation privileges Tucker challenges, and the loss of visitation privileges will not lengthen the duration of his confinement. 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) CONCLUSION For the reasons stated in this order, the Court DISMISSES this petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. DATED: November 9, 2010 /S/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.