Clay v. Hanks

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

April 26, 2002

Case

Clay v. Hanks

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

ORDER Joel Clay, an inmate of the Westville (Indiana) Correctional Center, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging seven disciplinary proceedings against him that resulted in the loss of good-time credits and demotions in his credit-earning class. Clay alleged generally that his due process and *205 equal protection rights had been violated by various actions of the Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) and prison officials. The district court denied Clay’s petition, and he appeals. We affirm. In his brief, Clay discusses only four of the seven disciplinary proceedings raised in his habeas corpus petition. Furthermore, Clay’s brief is substantially deficient because it fails to include a summary of his arguments or a separate argument section containing citations to the record and legal authority to support his contentions. Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8) and (9). Clay presents only minimally-coherent discussions of the four disciplinary proceedings, citing legal support for only two of his apparent assertions of error. We deem Clay to have waived any argument with respect to the two proceedings for which he cites no authority or citations to the record, Mu…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.