OPINION AND ORDER
RUDY LOZANO, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jamie Elijah, a pro se prisoner. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
Elijah filed a habeas corpus petition challenging WCC 17-03-262, a prison disciplinary proceeding held at the Westville Correctional Facility. ECF 1 at 1. On April 7, 2017, a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of Assault/Battery in violation of B-212. Id. As a result, he was sanctioned with a demotion from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id.
In his petition, Elijah attempts to raise two grounds to challenge the finding of guilt. However, he acknowledges that he has not presented any of these grounds to the Final Reviewing Authority. Id.
In habeas corpus proceedings, the exhaustion requirement is contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-82 (7th Cir. 2002).
Though after each ground, Elijah checked the box indicating that he presented it to the Final Reviewing Authority, this is inconsistent with his previous response that he did not appeal to the Final Reviewing Authority. Because he did not attach a copy of the denial letter from the Final Reviewing Authority, it is not plausible to infer that he has exhausted his claims. Therefore this case will be dismissed without prejudice. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, when (or if he has already) appealed to and been denied by the Final Reviewing Authority, he may file a new habeas corpus petition challenging this disciplinary hearing. At that time, he needs to also attach a copy of the denial letter from the Final Reviewing Authority.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court