UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

DEJUAN DARNELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) No. 4:14 CV 43

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Dejuan Darnell, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE 1.) The court is obligated to review

the petition and dismiss it if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached

exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” RULE 4 OF THE RULES GOVERNING

SECTION 2254 CASES.

According to the petition and attachments, Darnell is an inmate within the

Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”). In 2007, he was assigned to work release

under the Community Transition Program, during which time he was housed at the

Marion County Correctional Facility (“the jail”). He was given a job search pass while at

the jail, but he failed to return at the allotted time. A warrant was issued for his arrest,

but he was not apprehended by law enforcement until 2012. After his arrest, he was

charged in state court with escape, and later pled guilty to this offense. The IDOC also

initiated a disciplinary proceeding charging Darnell with escape/failure to return. (DE 1

at 7.) He was found guilty, and as a result he lost 180 days of earned-time credit toward
his original sentence. (Id.) In this petition, Darnell requests that the court vacate the

disciplinary sanction and restore the 180 days of credits. (Id. at 3.)

When prisoners lose earned time credits in a disciplinary proceeding, the

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees them certain procedural

protections: (1) advance written notice of the charge; (2) an opportunity to be heard

before an impartial decision-maker; (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and present

documentary evidence when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals;

and (4) a written statement by the fact-finder of evidence relied on and the reasons for

the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). 

Here, Darnell does not argue that any of his Wolff rights were violated. Instead,

he asserts a double jeopardy violation based on the fact that he was convicted in state

court and later punished by the IDOC for the same conduct. (DE 1 at 2.) However, this

argument is unavailing, because double jeopardy principles do not apply in the prison

disciplinary context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996).

In his remaining claim, Darnell argues that the state court should not have gotten

involved in the matter at all, because he was in the custody of IDOC when he

absconded from the jail. (DE 1 at 2.) Putting to one side whether Darnell could raise

such a claim after pleading guilty, it is apparent that he is trying to challenge his state

conviction. He cannot do so in this disciplinary case. His is free to pursue a new habeas

petition challenging his state conviction, subject to the constraints of the Anti-Terrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) and after exhausting his available

2
state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). For his convenience the clerk will

send him the appropriate form. However, the court offers no opinion about the merits

of any claim he may have or the wisdom of pursuing this course.

For these reasons, the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to RULE 4 OF THE

RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES. The clerk is DIRECTED to send the petitioner a

blank AO-241 (Rev. 10/07) (INND Rev. 6/13) form.

SO ORDERED.

Date: May 30, 2014

/s James T, Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT