David M. Hodges v. R. Vinardi Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION DAVID M. HODGES, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00342-JPH-MKK ) R. VINARDI WARDEN, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Petitioner David Hodges filed the instant habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding in WVC 24-08-2414 in which he was found guilty.

Before the court are the parties' motions to dismiss the petition. Dkt. 19, 25. "[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)). "It is the custody itself that must violate the Constitution. Accordingly, prisoners who are not seeking earlier or immediate release are not seeking habeas corpus relief." Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1350 (7th Cir. 2009). In other words, "a habeas corpus petition must attack the fact or duration of one's sentence; if it does not, it does not state a proper basis for relief." Id. Typically, in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, this means that to be considered "in custody," the petitioner must have been deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), 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." Id. at 644.

Here, the parties agree that the petitioner's sanctions did not include the loss of good-time credits or a demotion in credit-class earning. Dkts. 19-1; 25.

Therefore, the petitioner is not "in custody" under § 2254, and the respondent's, dkt. [19], and the petitioner's, dkt. [25], motions to dismiss are granted. The petitioner's other pending motions, dkts. [15], [17], [18], [21], [22], and [24], are denied as moot.

Judgment dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction shall now issue.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 1/7/2026 Jamu Pataich Hanbor James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: DAVID M. HODGES 134996 WABASH VALLEY - CF Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Electronic Service Participant — Court Only Katherine A. Cornelius INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL [email protected]