MUELLER v. ZATECKY
| TED MUELLER, JR. |
| DUSHAN ZATECKY |
| PENDLETON CF (Court Use Only) |
| 1:2016cv02180 |
| August 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
17
Entry Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The petition of Ted Mueller for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding, ISR 16-04-0060, in which he was found guilty of battery w ith a weapon or serious injury. For the reasons explained in this entry, Mr. Mueller's habeas petition must be denied. "The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of the government." Wolff , 418 U.S. at 558. There was no arbitrary action in any aspect of the charge, disciplinary proceedings, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the proceedings. Accordingly, Mr. Mueller's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry). Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/15/2017.(APD)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
