Keplinger v. Superintendent
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 9 MOTION to Dismiss Petition as Moot by Respondent Warden and DISMISSING and the case. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 3/19/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TYSON KEPLINGER,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-647-PPS-MGG
OPINION AND ORDER
Tyson Keplinger, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition
challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in ISP 17-03-199 where a Disciplinary
Hearing Officer (DHO) at the Indiana State Prison found him guilty of attempted
trafficking in violation of A-111/A-113 on March 17, 2017. ECF 1 at 1. As a result,
Keplinger was sanctioned with the loss of 6 days earned credit time. Id.
After Keplinger filed his petition, the finding of guilt and sanctions were vacated.
ECF 9-6. The Warden has filed a motion to dismiss because this case is now moot. ECF
9. Keplinger did not file a response and the time for doing so has passed. See N.D. Ind.
L. Cr. R. 47-2. Regardless, the Court cannot overturn the disciplinary proceeding and
restore his time because the Indiana Department of Correction has already vacated the
proceeding and restored his time. That is to say, Keplinger has already won and there
is no case left for this court to decide. Accordingly, 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, the motion (ECF 9) is GRANTED and the case is
DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED on March 19, 2018.
/s Philip P. Simon
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?