Clark v. Superintendent

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 7 MOTION to Dismiss by Respondent Superintendent. This case is DISMISSED. Clerk DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 9/5/17. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JUSTIN JAMES EUGENE CLARK,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-318-JD-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Justin James Eugene Clark, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in ISP 17-01-216 where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer
(DHO) found him guilty of threatening another in violation of Indiana Department of Correction
Policy B-213. ECF 2 at 1. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit
time.
After Clark filed his petition, the finding of guilt and the sanctions were vacated, and the
charges against him were dismissed. ECF 7-2. The respondent has filed a motion to dismiss
because this case is now moot. ECF 7. Because the challenged disciplinary proceeding and
sanctions 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). Clark argues
that dismissal of his petition “would fail to hold the Respondent responsible for their failure to
uphold policies within the department of corrections.” ECF 11 at 2. However, the scope of this
court’s review is limited to determining whether Clark’s due process rights were violated by the
imposition of his discipline in ISP 17-01-216. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991)

(“state-law violations provide no basis for federal habeas relief”); Keller v. Donahue, 271 F. App’x
531, 532 (7th Cir. 2008) (inmate’s claim that prison failed to follow internal policies had “no
bearing on his right to due process”). Because he has obtained all relief possible, there is nothing
left for this court to review.
For these reasons, the motion (ECF 7) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. The
clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 5, 2017
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court

2