UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ADAM WHITNEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) No. 3:15 CV 201

)

BRUCE LEMON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Adam Whitney, a pro se prisoner, submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(DE #1.) “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,

however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation

marks and citations omitted). 

Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of

a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a

complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a

motion under RULE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). “In

order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived
him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of

state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Here, Whitney is currently incarcerated at the Indiana State Prison. He alleges

that false disciplinary charges were filed against him. He further claims that he was

denied due process during his prison disciplinary hearing as well as his subsequent

appeals and grievances. In case number ISP 15-01-0039, he was found guilty of

possessing a cell phone. He argues that he is not guilty of that charge, but this is not the

proper proceeding to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing board’s finding because

“habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or

duration of his confinement . . ..” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). 

In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), the United States Supreme Court made

clear that the principles of Heck also apply to prison disciplinary cases. 

In Heck, this Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages is

not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in favor of the

plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or

sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or

sentence has previously been invalidated.

Edwards, 520 U.S. at 643 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, Whitney has not

even alleged that the finding of guilt has been invalidated. Because a finding of liability

in this case would inherently undermine the validity of his disciplinary hearing, he may

not proceed with these claims until that finding is overturned on administrative appeal

or in a habeas corpus proceeding. 

2
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: June 17, 2015

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT