govinfo:USCOURTS-insd-1_26-cv-00388-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 
 
RODERICK WOODS, ) 
 ) 
Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
v. ) No. 1:26-cv-00388-SEB-TAB 
 ) 
J. WRIGLEY , ) 
 ) 
Respondent. ) 
 
 
Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 
Directing Entry of Final Judgment 
 
The petition of Roderick Woods for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 
challenges the rescission of previously restored earned credit time by the Indiana Department of 
Correction (IDOC). Respondent seeks dismissal of the petition for failure to exhaust his state court 
remedies. For the reasons explained in this Order, the motion to dismiss must be granted. 
I. Procedural History 
On January 14, 2010, the IDOC restored 340 days of Mr. Woods' previously deprived credit 
time. Dkt. 11-14 at 1. On March 5, 2025, the IDOC rescinded the restored 340 days of credit time 
because it discovered that Mr. Woods had not been conduct clear for 6 months when the restoration 
was granted. Dkt. 11-13. Mr. Woods challenges that rescission. 
II. Discussion 
Respondent argues that Mr. Woods failed to exhaust his claims by bringing them to a state 
court. The Court agrees. Habeas petitioners must exhaust their available state court remedies 
before coming to federal court. "An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person 
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that -- PageID #:
<pageID>
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is 
an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process 
ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 
Indiana state courts lack jurisdiction to review due process claims when they relate to the 
original deprivation of earned credit time, see Blanck v. Ind. Dept. of Corr., 829 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. 
2005), but Mr. Woods is not challenging the loss of earned credit time. Rather, he is challenging 
the IDOC's failure to restore previously deprived earned credit time, a claim that Indiana courts 
have authority to review. See Young v. Ind. Dept. of Corr ., 22 N.E.3d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014); 
Budd v. State, 935 N.E.2d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 
As noted, Mr. Woods has not brought his restoration challenge to the state courts. 
Procedural default caused by failure to exhaust state court remedies can be overcome if the 
petitioner shows cause and prejudice or shows that failure to consider the claims will result in a 
fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991); Moffat v. 
Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002). While Mr. Woods objects to the IDOC's rescission of 
the previously restored earned credit time, he has not shown cause and prejudice. Dkt. 13. 
III. Conclusion 
Mr. Woods has failed to exhaust his state court remedies and has not shown cause and 
prejudice. Therefore, Respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. [11], is granted and the action is 
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Judgment consistent with 
this Order shall now issue. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 Date:_________________ 
 
 
 _______________________________ 
 SARAH EVANS BAR
KER, JUDGE 
 United States District Court 
 Southern District of Indiana 
6/11/2026 PageID #:
<pageID>
Distribution: 
 
RODERICK WOODS 
931847 
NEW CASTLE - CF 
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels 
1000 Van Nuys Road 
P.O. Box E 
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362 
 
John Oosterhoff 
Office of Indiana Attorney General 
john.oosterhoff@atg.in.gov PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight