Pitcock v. Warden
Filing
9
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 7 MOTION to Dismiss . This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 7/27/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER M. PITCOCK,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:18-CV-092-JD-MGG
OPINION AND ORDER
Christopher M. Pitcock, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus
petition challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in ISP 17-09-382 where a
Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) at the Indiana State Prison found him guilty of
Disorderly Conduct in violation of B-236 on October 3, 2017. ECF 1 at 1. As a result,
Pitcock was sanctioned with the loss of 60 days earned credit time and was demoted
from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id.
After Pitcock filed his petition, the finding of guilt and sanctions were vacated.
ECF 7-1. The Warden has filed a motion to dismiss because this case is now moot. ECF
7. Pitcock 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, Pitcock 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 7) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.
The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED on July 27, 2018
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
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?