CLARK v. KNIGHT

CLARK v. KNIGHT

Petitioner:	BENNIE CLARK
Respondent:	STANLEY KNIGHT
Case Number:	2:2015cv00111
Filed:	April 22, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Terre Haute Office
Presiding Judge:	Denise K. LaRue
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 13, 2016	Filing 10 Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The petition of Bennie Clark for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. JCU 15-01-0009. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Clark's habe as 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 pr oceedings, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Clark to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Clark'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 4/13/2016.(RSF)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 13, 2016

Filing 10 Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - The petition of Bennie Clark for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. JCU 15-01-0009. For the reasons explained in this Entry, Clark's habe as 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 pr oceedings, or sanctions involved in the events identified in this action, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the proceeding which entitles Clark to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, Clark'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 4/13/2016.(RSF)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: CLARK v. KNIGHT
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: BENNIE CLARK
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: STANLEY KNIGHT
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?