Conzalos Glasco v. CRAIG HANKS, Superintendent

*Appellee Craig Hanks notified this court that he was never served with process
in the district court and would not be filing a brief or otherwise participating in this
appeal. After an examination of the appellant’s brief and the record, we have
concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the
appellant’s brief and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)).
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 9, 2005*
Decided June 10, 2005
Before
Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 04-3924
CONZALOS GLASCO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CRAIG HANKS, Superintendent,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis
Division.
No. 1:04-CV-1156-SEB-VSS
Sarah Evans Barker,
Judge.
ORDER
Indiana inmate Conzalos Glasco petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 after a Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) found him guilty of
making a sexual gesture towards a prison official and sentenced him to three
months in disciplinary segregation. The district court denied his petition on the
basis that he may not use § 2254 to challenge the CAB proceeding because he is not
“in custody” pursuant to the CAB decision. We agree with the district court.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-3924 Page 2
Section 2254 allows prisoners to challenge decisions that place them “in custody.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Glasco is in custody pursuant to his original judgment of
conviction, and the CAB proceeding did not impose additional custody on him. It
resulted only in disciplinary segregation, and that punishment affects the severity
not the duration of his prison term. See Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641,
643-44 (7th Cir. 2001). A challenge to the disciplinary proceeding is thus not a
challenge to a decision that placed him in custody, so Glasco may not challenge it
under § 2254.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --