HODGES v. VINARDI

1
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
Case 2:25-cv-00342-JPH-MKK Document 26 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(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.
Distribution:
DAVID M. HODGES
134996
WABASH VALLEY - CF
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Katherine A. Cornelius
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Katherine.Cornelius@atg.in.gov
Date: 1/7/2026
Case 2:25-cv-00342-JPH-MKK Document 26 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>