VAUGHN v. BUGHER et al
BOBBY VAUGHN |
ROBERT BUGHER, GAGNON, STANLEY KNIGHT and C. A. PENFOLD |
PLAINFIELD CF (Court Use Only) |
1:2017cv01533 |
May 10, 2017 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Indianapolis Office |
Mark J. Dinsmore |
Jane Magnus-Stinson |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 15 Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The petition of Bobby Vaughn for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. IYC 16-10-0199. For the reasons expl ained in this Entry, Vaughn'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 a spect of the charge, disciplinary proceedings, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Vaughn to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Vaughn's peti tion for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed. Vaughn's Request for Judicial Notice, dkt. 14 , is granted to the extent the Court considered the information provided in that motion. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/11/2017. (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.