Williams v. Warden

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE, granting 7 Motion to Dismiss, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/24/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION CHARLES WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:18-CV-265-RLM-MGG OPINION AND ORDER Charles Williams, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in STP 17-07-92, in which disciplinary hearing officer found him guilty of conspiring to possess a cellular device in violation of A-111/A-121 on July 28, 2017. ECF 2 at 1, ECF 7-3 at 1. Mr. Williams was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit time and demoted from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. Id. After Mr. Williams filed his petition, the finding of guilt and sanctions were vacated. ECF 7-5 at 1. The Warden has filed a motion to dismiss because this case is now moot. ECF 7. Mr. Williams 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 can’t 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, Mr. Williams has already won and there’s nothing 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 August 24, 2018 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 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?