PHILLIPS v. VANIHEIL

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JAMES E. PHILLIPS, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:24-cv-02284-JPH-TAB
)
VANIHEIL Warden, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Petitioner James E. Phillips filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging his prison disciplinary conviction in ISR-23-11-001326. This action
is ripe for review, and the Court will issue its ruling in due course. Among Mr.
Phillips's sanctions in ISR-23-11-001326, he is to pay $4,994.59 in restitution.
Dkt. 9-4. He has filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to have the
restitution amount reduced to $500.00 during the pendency of this action. Dkt.
15. For the reasons set forth, that motion is DENIED.
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy that is
available only when the movant shows clear need." Turnell v. CentiMark Corp.,
796 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2015). To obtain a preliminary injunction a plaintiff
first must show that: "(1) without this relief, [he] will suffer irreparable harm;
(2) traditional legal remedies would be inadequate; and (3) [he] has some
likelihood of prevailing on the merits of [his] claims." Speech First, Inc. v. Killen,
968 F.3d 628, 637 (7th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted). "A preliminary
injunction is always appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same
Case 1:24-cv-02284-JPH-TAB Document 29 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
character as that which may be granted finally." De Beers Consol. Mines v.
United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). If a motion for preliminary injunction,
"deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit," it should be
denied. Id.
Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available only on the ground that
a prisoner "is being held in violation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution."
Caffey v. Butler, 802 F.3d 884, 894 (7th Cir. 2015). Prisoners in Indiana
custody may not be deprived of good-time credits or of credit-earning class
without due process. Ellison v. Zatecky, 820 F.3d 271, 274 (7th Cir.
2016); Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007); see Rhoiney v.
Neal, 723 F. App'x 347, 348 (7th Cir. 2018). A constitutional due process right
does not similarly attach to a disciplinary sanction of restitution. See
Washington v. Smith, 564 F.3d 1350, 1351 (7th Cir. 2009) ("[Petitioner]'s attack
on counsel's handling of the restitution amount simply does not state a
cognizable claim for relief under § 2254." (citation omitted)).
Mr. Phillips's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is proceeding on his allegations
that he was deprived of 2,235 days of earned credit time and was demoted in
credit-earning class without due process. Should his petition be granted, the
effect on his restitution sanction would be ancillary to the due process remedy.
A reduction or elimination of Mr. Phillips's restitution amount is therefore not
of the same character as that relief which may be fully granted and lies wholly
outside the issues of this action. See De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. at 220.
Indeed, a state prisoner may obtain habeas corpus relief "only on the ground
Case 1:24-cv-02284-JPH-TAB Document 29 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States[,]" 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), and challenging a restitution sanction is
not engaging such grounds.
Accordingly, Mr. Phillips's motion for preliminary injunction, dkt. [15], is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
JAMES E. PHILLIPS
106333
WABASH VALLEY - CF
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
CARLISLE, IN 47838
Katherine A. Cornelius
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Katherine.Cornelius@atg.in.gov
Date: 3/9/2026
Case 1:24-cv-02284-JPH-TAB Document 29 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>