Lemond v. Warden, No. 3:2018cv00853 - Document 2 (N.D. Ind. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 10/30/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)

Download PDF
Lemond v. Warden Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION BILLY J. LEMOND, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-853-JD-MGG OPINION AND ORDER Billy J. Lemond, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his disciplinary sanctions in case ISF 18-03-0070 where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of violation of law (false reporting) in violation of Indiana Department of Correction policy A-100. ECF 1 at 1, ECF 1-1 at 4. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit time and a one-step demotion in credit class. ECF 1-1 at 9. However, these sanctions were suspended and have not been imposed. ECF 1-1 at 9, 12. As such, Lemond has not yet lost earned credit time nor been demoted in credit class as a result of that hearing. A prison disciplinary hearing can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it results in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, because this disciplinary hearing did not result in the lengthening of the duration of Lemond’s confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Because there is no relief that he can obtain in this habeas corpus Dockets.Justia.com proceeding, the petition will be denied. If, in the future, these suspended sanctions are imposed, then he may file another habeas corpus petition challenging them. For these reasons, the court DENIES the petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED on October 30, 2018 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

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.