Love v. Superintendent, No. 3:2013cv00633 - Document 4 (N.D. Ind. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 7/2/13. (smp)

Download PDF
Love v. Superintendent Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION JOSHUA LOVE, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:13 CV 633 OPINION and ORDER Joshua Love, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE # 1.) The court is obligated to review the petition and dismiss it if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.] RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES. According to the petition, Love was found guilty at the Westville Correctional Facility of destroying state property. (DE # 1 at 1.) He was sanctioned with disciplinary segregation, a temporary loss of phone privileges, and an order to pay $275 in restitution. (Id.) He claims that his due process rights were violated in connection with the hearing. (Id. at 3-4.) A prison disciplinary sanction can only be challenged in a habeas proceeding if it lengthens the duration of the prisoner s confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2003). A prison s decision to house an inmate in segregation, to suspend certain privileges, or to impose other such sanctions affects the severity, not the Dockets.Justia.com duration, of confinement; thus, an inmate cannot use habeas corpus to challenge that determination. See Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2001). The sanctions imposed in Love s case did not lengthen the duration of his confinement, and he cannot challenge them in a habeas petition. Instead, [m]ore-restrictive custody must be challenged under § 1983, in the uncommon circumstances when it can be challenged at all. Id. at 644; see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-85 (1995) (prisoners are not entitled to due process protections unless a change in prison conditions results in an atypical and significant hardship when compared to the ordinary incidents of prison life ). For these reasons, the petition (DE # 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES. SO ORDERED. Date: July 2, 2013 s/James T. Moody JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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.