Eric Grandberry v. Brian Smith, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22658

Grandberry challenged a prison disciplinary sanction (loss of good-time credits extending custody by 30 days) via 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition, not the underlying conviction.
District court denied relief on the merits; Grandberry appealed without a certificate of appealability (COA).
Question presented: whether COA is required for habeas appeals from state prison disciplinary actions under §2253(c)(1)(A).
Seventh Circuit previously held COA not required in such disciplinary-appeal cases (Walker v. O’Brien).
Court requested briefing on whether to overrule Walker in light of a Ninth Circuit shift (Hayward v. Marshall); declines to overrule and maintains Walker’s rule.
Court holds Grandberry’s appeal will proceed without COA and will receive briefing on the merits under a separate order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
COA requirement for habeas appeals from disciplinary actions	Grandberry argues COA not required (Walker rule)	Walker interpretation should stand; COA not required	COA not required; appeal proceeds without COA
Whether Walker v. O’Brien should be overruled	Hayward indicates COA required	Walker remains sound	Walker remains good law; do not overrule
Scope of appeal and briefing procedure	Proceed to merits with briefing order	Follow normal briefing schedule	Petitioner's appeal to proceed without COA; merits briefing scheduled separately

Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000) (COA not required for prison disciplinary appeal)
Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc; debated COA requirement in disciplinary context)
Blanck v. Indiana Dep’t of Corr., 829 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. 2005) (state-court involvement in discipline minimal/nonexistent)
McClain v. Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Plan, 413 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2005) (statutory overruling considerations)
United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc; discussed overruling precedent on statutory interpretation)