Clark v. Superintendent

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 16 Respondent's Amended Motion to Dismiss and this case is DISMISSED; Respondent's 14 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT; Petitioner's 18 Petition to Contest Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; and the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 9/5/2017. (tc)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17CV319-PPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Justin James Eugene Clark, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in ISP 17-01-101 where a Disciplinary Hearing
Officer (DHO) found him guilty of assault with bodily fluids in violation of Indiana
Department of Correction Policy A-102. 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 was vacated, his earned credit time
was restored, and the matter was expunged from his record. ECF 16-1. The Respondent has
filed an amended motion to dismiss because this case is now moot. ECF 16. Clark
responded, arguing that dismissal of his petition “would fail to hold the Respondent
responsible for their failure to uphold policies within the department of corrections.” ECF
18. 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 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).
For these reasons:
(1) Respondent’s Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF 16) is GRANTED and this case
is DISMISSED;
(2) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 14) is DENIED AS MOOT;
(3) Petitioner’s Petition to Contest Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18) is
DENIED; and
(4) the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 5, 2017
/s/ Philip P. Simon
Judge
United States District Court