Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.

The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding, NCN 17-01-0041, in which he was found guilty of counterfeiting documents on February 6, 2017. His sanctions included a 30-day loss of phone and commissary privileges and a suspended loss of 30 days earned credit time. The respondent moves to dismiss the petition, arguing that the petitioner is not "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and thus he cannot obtain any habeas relief.

"[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)). If the sanctions imposed in a prison disciplinary proceeding do not potentially lengthen a prisoner's custody, then those sanction cannot be challenged in an action for habeas corpus relief. See Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Typically, this means that in order to be considered "in custody" for the purposes of challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner must have been deprived of good-time credits, id., 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 it chooses, or no procedures at all." Montgomery, 262 F.3d at 644.

Here, the petitioner's sanction did not include the loss of good-time credits or a demotion in credit-class earning. Although the petitioner argues that he brought his petition during the six-month window in which the suspended loss of good-time credits could have been imposed, that time has now passed and the plaintiff does not assert that the suspended sanction was ever imposed. Because the suspended loss of good-time credits was not imposed, and the time in which it could be imposed has passed, the petitioner is not "in custody" under § 2254. Thus the respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. [9], must be granted. The petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. Final Judgment in accordance with this decision shall now issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.