Case Name: Conzalos GLASCO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig HANKS, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-10
Citations: 134 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 04-3924
Parties: Conzalos GLASCO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig HANKS, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before POSNER, COFFEY, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 98–98

Head Matter:
Conzalos GLASCO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig HANKS, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-3924.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted June 9, 2005.
Decided June 10, 2005.
Conzalos Glaseo, Carlisle, IN, pro se.
Before POSNER, COFFEY, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Appellee Craig Hanks notified this court that he was never served with process in the district court and would not be filing a brief or otherwise participating in this appeal. After an examination of the appellant's brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Indiana inmate Conzalos Glaseo petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after a Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) found him guilty of making a sexual gesture towards a prison official and sentenced him to three months in disciplinary segregation. The district court denied his petition on the basis that he may not use § 2254 to challenge the CAB proceeding because he is not "in custody" pursuant to the CAB decision. We agree with the district court. Section 2254 allows prisoners to challenge decisions that place them "in custody." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Glaseo is in custody pursuant to his original judgment of conviction, and the CAB proceeding did not impose additional custody on him. It resulted only in disciplinary segregation, and that punishment affects the severity not the duration of his prison term. See Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643-44 (7th Cir.2001). A challenge to the disciplinary proceeding is thus not a challenge to a decision that placed him in custody, so Glaseo may not challenge it under § 2254.
AFFIRMED.