Jemison v. Superintendent

Filing 15

ORDER: GRANTING 6 Motion to Dismiss; GRANTING 9 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Marjorie E Newell; and DENYING 10 Motion for Hearing; DIRECTING the clerk to treat this matter as closed. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 6/23/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jld)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
EDDIE E. JEMISON,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 3:17-cv-231

OPINION AND ORDER
Eddie E. Jemison, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging a prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 17-01-86) in which a Disciplinary Hearing
Officer found him guilty of engaging in an unauthorized financial transaction in
violation of Indiana Department of Correction policy B-220. (DE 1 at 1.) As a result,
Jemison was sanctioned with the loss of 30 days earned credit time. Id.
After Jemison filed his petition, the IDOC vacated the guilty finding and
remanded the case for a new hearing. (See DE 6-1.) Based on the IDOC’s action, the
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Griffith’s petition is moot because
the guilty verdict and accompanying sanctions have been vacated. (DE 6; DE 7.) In
response to the motion to dismiss, Jemison filed a “Motion to Hold Prison Disciplinary
Rehearing in Abeyance” and a “Memorandum of Law in Support/Reply to
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss” (DE 10; DE 13). Both documents argue that the IDOC
should not be permitted to re-hear his disciplinary case because a re-hearing would

amount to double jeopardy and because the IDOC no longer has jurisdiction over the case.
He is wrong on both counts. First, double jeopardy does not apply in the prison
disciplinary context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996). Second, it is
this court that has no jurisdiction over the second prison disciplinary hearing because
Jemison’s habeas petition only challenged discipline that was imposed as a result of the
January 11, 2017 hearing. (DE 1 at 1.) As a result, there no longer is a case or controversy
for me to adjudicate, and the petition must be dismissed. See generally Hadley v. Holmes,
341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting that a prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary
determination in a habeas proceeding only when a previously conferred benefit has
been taken away). If Jemison finds the results of his new disciplinary hearing to be
similarly objectionable, he must file a new habeas petition after exhausting his
administrative remedies.
There is one tangential matter, which is that the respondent filed a motion to
withdraw the appearance of attorney Marjorie Newell. (DE 9.) Deputy Attorney
General Aaron Croft has also appeared on the respondent’s behalf, so the motion to
withdraw will be granted, pursuant to Local Rule 83-8(c).
Accordingly:
(1) the Motion to Dismiss (DE 6) is GRANTED, and the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to treat this matter as closed;

2

(2) Jemison’s Motion to Hold Prison Disciplinary Rehearing in Abeyance (DE 10)
is DENIED; and
(3) the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Marjorie Newell (DE 9) is
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 23, 2017
s/ Philip P. Simon
JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3