Filing 20

ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. For the reasons discussed herein, the respondent's motion to dismiss 13 is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/24/2011. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. mail.(LBK)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA JACK M. ESTES, II, Petitioner, v. WENDY KNIGHT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:10-cv-1433-JMS-MJD Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus "A case is moot when issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (internal citations omitted). Thus, “if an event occurs while a case is pending . . . that makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party, the [case] must be dismissed.” Id. (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). In a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. IYC 09-04-0159, Jack M. Estes, II, was found guilty of the unauthorized use or possession of an electronic device. The sanctions imposed included a suspended 15-day earned credit time. That sanction has not expired and can no longer be imposed. Accordingly, Estes cannot now satisfy the “in custody” requirement of the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). A court lacks jurisdiction over a claim which is moot, Board of Educ. of Downers Grove Grade School Dist. No. 58 v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1556 (1997). When it is determined that a court lacks jurisdiction, its only course of action is to announce that fact and dismiss the case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)("'Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.'")(quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall, 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)). The respondent’s motion to dismiss [13] is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Date: 05/24/2011 Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

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?