SMITH v. ZENK

Filing 20

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 10/17/2012 (copy mailed to Anthony Smith) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

ANTHONY L. SMITH,
Petitioner,

v.
MICHAEL ZENK,

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-cv-799-WTL-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Anthony Smith is an Indiana prisoner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus with
respect to a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. ISF 12-03-0262.
The respondent, representing the State of Indiana, has filed a motion to
dismiss. Smith has opposed the respondent’s motion.
Discussion
Smith was found guilty of trafficking in No. ISF 12-03-0262 and was
sanctioned with the loss of earned good time, a credit class demotion, a period of
time in disciplinary segregation and a written reprimand. This habeas action was
filed after Smith’s administrative appeals were rejected, but after the habeas action
was filed the Indiana Department of Correction reviewed the matter and through
administrative fiat vacated the finding of misconduct on September 27, 2012, and
ordered a rehearing.
The development described above, being that the finding of misconduct was
vacated, renders the action moot. Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506
U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (“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.”)(quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). "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).

Smith argues that the Department of Correction acted without this court’s
authority in vacating the challenged disciplinary proceeding by administrative fiat.
However, he has not shown that this court’s permission for that action was
required. Macktal v. Chao, 286 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2002)(“[I]t is generally
accepted that in the absence of a specific statutory limitation, an administrative
agency has the inherent authority to reconsider its decisions.”) (collecting cases)
A case which is moot must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 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 [12] is granted. Judgment consistent
with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/17/2012
Date: _____________________
Distribution:
Anthony L. Smith No. 150950
New Castle Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362
All Electronically Registered Counsel

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana