UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

OLEKSANDR PUSHKAROVYCH,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-585-DRL-MGG

WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION & ORDER Oleksandr Pushkarovych, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition under

. He used this court’s form for habeas petitions challenging a state court conviction, but he is not challenging his conviction. He is challenging a prison official’s decision not to grant him a reduction in sentence for becoming certified as a braille transcriber and format specialist. Under Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the court must dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Just as in Hadley v. Holmes,

(7th Cir. 2003), Mr. Pushkarovych isn’t complaining that any conferred benefit has been eliminated: In order to bring an action under § 2254, a prisoner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction or sentence being challenged. Although § 2254 is the appropriate vehicle when prison officials have revoked good-time credits once earned or lowered a previously established credit-earning classification, [the prisoner here] is not complaining that any benefit already conferred has been taken away. Id. (citations omitted). So Mr. Pushkarovych cannot obtain any relief in this habeas case. District courts faced with a § 1983 suit brought under § 2254 should, rather than reach the merits, dismiss without prejudice to the possibility of a future § 1983 action[, but w]e hasten to add, however, that [he] would be foolish to pursue this path because [a federal] claim [he was denied education credits] is frivolous. Id. at 665. There is no constitutional mandate to provide educational, rehabilitative, or vocational programs, in the absence of conditions that give rise to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although the Constitution guarantees no right to credit time for good behavior or educational programs, the State may create such a liberty interest. [The inmate] argues that Indiana has done just that, created a liberty interest under Indiana Code § 35–50–6–3.3, which grants an inmate credit time for successfully completing various educational programs. We have already reviewed and rejected this identical claim. Zimmerman v. Tribble,

(7th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). As a final matter, under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability in all cases where it enters a final order adverse to the petitioner. To obtain a certificate of appealability, the petitioner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right by establishing “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For the reasons already explained, Mr. Pushkarovych hasn’t demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. Mr. Pushkarovych hasn’t made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, nor could jurists of reason debate the outcome of the petition or find a reason to encourage him to proceed further. Accordingly, the court declines to issue Mr. Pushkarovych a certificate of appealability. For these reasons, the court: (1) DISMISSES the habeas petition; (2) DENIES Oleksandr Pushkarovych a certificate of appealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11; and (3) DIRECTS the clerk to close this case. SO ORDERED.

July 21, 2020 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court