Jones v. Superintendent

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 7 Motion to Dismiss; The Petition is DISMISSED AS MOOT. (cc: Jones) Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 7/27/16. (mlc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CLIFFORD JONES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-130

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Habeas Corpus Petition by a State Prisoner Challenging a Prison
Disciplinary

Proceeding,

filed

by

Clifford

Jones,

a

pro

se

prisoner, on March 9, 2016; and (2) Motion to Dismiss, filed by the
Respondent on June 27, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the
motion to dismiss (DE 7) is GRANTED and the petition (DE 1) is
DISMISSED as moot.

BACKGROUND
Clifford Jones filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his loss of 90 days earned credit time
and a demotion from credit class I to credit class II. On November
11, 2015, in case number MCF 15-10-0197, a Disciplinary Hearing
Body (“DHB”) at Miami Correctional Facility imposed that sanction
after they found Jones guilty of possession or use of a controlled
substance.

DISCUSSION

The respondent moves to dismiss, asserting that after the
petition

was

filed,

the

Indiana

Department

of

Correction

reconsidered the case and has vacated the conviction and remanded
for a new hearing. (DE 7-1; 7-3 at 6.) Accordingly, the respondent
argues that the petition is now moot. Jones has not responded to
the motion to dismiss.
Because Jones’ disciplinary sanction has been vacated and the
matter

remanded

for

a

new

hearing,

there

is

at

present

no

punishment lengthening the duration of confinement for this court
to review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003)
(prisoner

can

challenge

disciplinary

determination

in

habeas

proceeding only when he has received punishment that lengthens the
duration of confinement). In other words, there is no longer a live
controversy and the case must be dismissed as moot. See Brown v.
Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006)
(“For a case to be justiciable, a live controversy must continue to
exist at all stages of review, not simply on the date the action
was initiated.”). If Jones is dissatisfied with the outcome of the
new disciplinary hearing, he can pursue his administrative remedies
and, if necessary, seek relief in a new habeas petition.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss (DE 7)
is GRANTED and the petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED as moot.
-2-

DATED: July 27, 2016

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court

-3-