IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ERIC LAUDERDALE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-127

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28

U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in

State Custody filed by Eric Lauderdale on February 22, 2013, and

the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent on July 3, 2013. For

the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss (DE 7) is

GRANTED, the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is

DIRECTED to send Eric Lauderdale a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint

Packet.

BACKGROUND

Eric Lauderdale, a pro se prisoner, is attempting to challenge

the prison disciplinary proceeding (MCF 12-08-0019) held by the

Miami Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) on

August 14, 2012. Lauderdale was found guilty of possessing an

electronic device in violation of B-207. He was punished with the

loss of 90 days earned credit time and demoted from credit class I

to II. In addition, he was given a written reprimand, a suspended
30 day placement in disciplinary segregation, and a 1 month loss of

telephone and commissary privileges. In addition, as a result of

having been found guilty, Lauderdale was fired from his job and

consequently lost the opportunity to earn 180 days earned credit

time. On appeal, the superintendent suspended the 90 day loss of

earned credit time and the demotion from credit class I to II. 

DISCUSSION

The motion to dismiss argues that because the deadline for

imposing the suspended loss of earned credit time and the suspended

demotion in credit class has passed, Lauderdale has not had the

duration of his confinement extended as a result of this prison

disciplinary proceeding. Lauderdale understands that his suspended

sentences can never be imposed. However, he argues that because of

this hearing, he lost his prison job and thereby lost the

opportunity to earn 180 days of earned credit time. 

Nevertheless, a prison disciplinary action can only be

challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it results in the

lengthening of the duration of confinement, Hadley v. Holmes, 341

F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, this prison disciplinary

proceeding is not extending the duration of his confinement. It is

true that he has been deprived of the chance to shorten his

sentence, but that collateral consequence cannot be challenged in

a habeas corpus proceeding. Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 641 (7th

2
Cir. 2004) (Holding that the loss of an inmate’s job, housing

assignment, reputation, and access to prison programs were

insufficient collateral consequences to permit jurisdiction over a

prison disciplinary habeas corpus petition which did not result in

the loss of earned credit time.)

State prisoners who want to challenge their convictions,

their sentences, or administrative orders revoking

good-time credits or equivalent sentence-shortening

devices, must seek habeas corpus, because they contest

the fact or duration of custody. State prisoners who want

to raise a constitutional challenge to any other

decision, such as transfer to a new prison,

administrative segregation, exclusion from prison

programs, or suspension of privileges, must instead

employ § 1983 or another statute authorizing damages or

injunctions – when the decision may be challenged at all,

which under Sandin v. Conner [515 U.S. 472 (1995)] will

be uncommon. 

Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-51 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations

omitted). 

Because Lauderdale has expressed a desire to challenge events

which can only be challenged in a prisoner civil rights case (if at

all), the court will direct the clerk to send him the paperwork to

file such a case if he chooses to do so. However, Lauderdale should

not infer that by doing so the court has expressed any opinion as

to the merits of such a claim nor the wisdom of filing such a case.

Furthermore, he is cautioned that if he files a prisoner civil

rights case, he will have to pay the filing fee either in advance

or over time – and that if the case is found to be meritless, he

may incur a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

3
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motion (DE 7) is GRANTED,

the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to send

Eric Lauderdale a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint Packet.

DATED: August 22, 2013 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

4