Bond

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

KEIRSEAN M. BOND,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:26-cv-4004-JEH

Jacob Bailey, Warden, Hill Correction

Center,

Respondent.

Opinion

Before the Court are Petitioner Keirsean M. Bond’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and Supplemental Petitions

(Docs. 2, 3), and Respondent’s1 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). Petitioner seeks to

challenge a disciplinary hearing that resulted in a loss of good time credits, but

has not exhausted his state court remedies. For the reasons below, the Court

grants Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) and DISMISSES Petitioner’s

Petition (Doc. 1) and Supplemental Petitions (Docs. 2, 3) without prejudice for

failure to exhaust. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

I2

Petitioner is currently serving an aggregate 40-year term of imprisonment

in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) for his Illinois convictions of

first degree murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery.

1 The warden of Hill Correction Facility is now Jacob Bailey. Accordingly, Jacob Bailey will be

substituted for Tyrone Baker as respondent.

2Unless otherwise noted, the facts are taken from Respondent’s brief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2248 (“The

allegations of a return to the writ of habeas corpus or of an answer to an order to show cause in a habeas

corpus proceeding, if not traversed, shall be accepted as true except to the extent that the judge finds from

the evidence that they are not true.”). Moreover, the relevant facts for purposes of this procedural issue

are not in dispute.

Petitioner’s Petition challenges the loss of good conduct credit following

prison disciplinary proceedings while serving his sentence. Specifically, on

September 23, 2025, Petitioner pleaded guilty to four prison rule violations after

he supplied others with drugs in prison: (1) drugs and drug paraphernalia

(offense number 302); (2) possessing or soliciting unauthorized personal

information of another (offense number 211); (3) abuse of privileges (offense

number 310); and (4) violation of rules (offense number 404). See (Doc. 12-2 at 1–

12) (Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) Final Summary Report and

Disciplinary Report, Ticket 202502927); see also 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.App’x

A (Offense Numbers and Definitions). As a result, the Director of IDOC imposed

several disciplinary sanctions, including the revocation of six months of good

conduct credit (GCC). Id. at 3; see generally 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3 (a)(2)(ii) and (iii)

(explaining GCC accrual for attempted first degree murder and armed robbery,

respectively); id. § 5/3-6-3(c) (explaining revocation of GCC).

After the imposition of sanctions, Petitioner filed a grievance seeking to

vacate the disciplinary sanctions. The Administrative Review Board (ARB)

reviewed the grievance and found no justification for additional consideration of

the Director’s decision and denied further redress on December 18, 2025.

Respondent reports it has not located any actions by Petitioner challenging this

decision via a mandamus action in state court.

Petitioner filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) on January 13, 2026, as well as two supplemental petitions

(Docs. 2, 3), arguing that the disciplinary proceedings violated his due process

rights, confrontation rights, and right against cruel and unusual punishment. In

response, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12), arguing that the

Petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust. Petitioner has now filed a

response to the motion (Doc. 14). This Order follows.

II

Petitioner is a state prisoner and is challenging his prison disciplinary

proceedings that resulted in a loss of good time credits. A state prisoner must

exhaust his available state court remedies before challenging his custody in a

federal habeas petition, unless there is an absence of an available State corrective

process or “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the

rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b)(1)(A)–(B). To fairly present a federal

claim, a petitioner must assert that claim throughout at least one complete round

of state court review, whether on direct appeal of his conviction or in

postconviction proceedings. Richardson v. Lemke, 745 F.3d 258, 268 (7th Cir. 2014).

The complete round requirement means that the petitioner must raise the issue at

each and every level in the state court system, including levels at which review is

discretionary rather than mandatory. Id. at 268. While a petitioner does not have

to pursue all separate state remedies that are available to him, he must give the

state courts “one fair opportunity to pass upon and correct the alleged

violations.” McAtee v. Cowan, 250 F.3d 506, 509 (7th Cir. 2001).

In Illinois, a State corrective process exists. A petition for writ of

mandamus pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/14-101, et seq., is “the established means for

an Illinois inmate to challenge in court a disciplinary decision and is also a

prerequisite for Illinois prisoners challenging disciplinary actions in federal court

by bringing a § 2254 petition in federal court.” Donelson v. Pfister, 811 F.3d 911,

915 (7th Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Illinois, the “one complete round”

requirement requires a petitioner to appeal and to “include his claims in a

petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.” Snow v. Pfister, 880

F.3d 857, 864 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845–46

(1999)).

Here, Petitioner does not contend that he has filed petition for writ of

mandamus pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/14-101 to challenge his disciplinary

proceedings or any other action (if one exists) to exhaust his state court remedies.

Rather, he argues that the procedural requirement should be disregarded

because of the merits of his claims. (Doc. 14 at 1). However, even if the Court

agreed with Petitioner’s sentiments, there is no legal basis for the Court to allow

Petitioner to forego the statutory requirement of exhaustion and jump to a

review of the merits of his claims. Should Petitioner wish to further pursue his

claims in federal court, he must first exhaust them in state court. Accordingly, the

Court finds that Petitioner’s Petition must be dismissed without prejudice for

lack of exhaustion. If Petitioner exhausts his state court remedies and seeks

further review, he may file another § 2254 Petition at that time.

III

Should Petitioner wish to appeal this decision, he must obtain a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A certificate may issue “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a claim is resolved on procedural grounds, a

certificate of appealability should issue only if reasonable jurists could disagree

about the merits of the underlying constitutional claim and about whether the

procedural ruling was correct. Flores-Ramirez v. Foster, 811 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir.

2016). Here, the Court does not find that reasonable jurists could disagree that

Petitioner’s claims are unexhausted. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability.

IV

Accordingly, Warden Jacob Bailey is substituted for Tyrone Baker as

Respondent. The Court GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Doc. 12) and

DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 1) and Supplemental Petitions (Docs. 2, 3)

without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The Court declines to issue a certificate

of appealability. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue judgment in favor of

Respondent and CLOSE the case.

It is so ordered.

Entered on April 30, 2026

s/Jonathan E. Hawley

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE