ESTES v. KNIGHT

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)

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