Capatina v. Superintendent

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 16 Motion to Dismiss, Case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close this case. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 10/4/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RANDALL CAPATINA,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-86-PPS-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Randall Capatina, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in WCC 15-09-168 where a Disciplinary
Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of threatening another in violation of Indiana
Department of Correction (IDOC) policy B-213. ECF 2 at 1. As a result, he was
sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit time.
After Mr. Capatina filed his petition, the IDOC reduced the charge and restored
his earned credit time. ECF 16-1. The Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss because
this case is now moot. ECF 16. Because the challenged disciplinary sanctions affecting
the length of his incarceration have been vacated, this case must be dismissed. See
Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge prison
disciplinary determination in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that
lengthened the duration of his confinement). Mr. Capatina argues that Respondent’s
motion should be denied because “to reduce the charge level and vacate the sanctions,
however, that does not moot the controversy of his having been deprived of his due

process rights in the hearing and conviction.” ECF 20 at 2 (emphasis omitted). Yet, Mr.
Capatina only had procedural due process rights to the extent that he received a
sanction that affected the duration of his sentence. See id. Here, there is no such
sanction, and therefore Mr. Capatina has no corresponding due process rights
pertaining to this disciplinary proceeding. Because he has obtained all relief possible,
there is nothing left for this court to review.
For these reasons, the motion (ECF 16) is GRANTED and this case is
DISMISSED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 4, 2017.

s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2