JOHNSON v. TAYLOR

Filing 17

ENTRY Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ORDER denying as moot Petitioner's 11 Motion for Court Access; granting Respondent's 15 Motion to Dismiss. Because Mr. Johnson's loss of good-time credits did not extend the d ate his parole will be terminated, his habeas petition cannot affect the duration of his custody, the habeas action is moot, see id., and an action which is moot must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, see Diaz v. Duckworth, 143 F.3d 345, 347 (7th Cir. 1998). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/22/2015. (MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

DARNELL LEVON JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH VALLEY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-00681-TWP-MJD

Entry Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The petition of Darnell Johnson for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a Madison County
Detention Center disciplinary proceeding conducted in December 2014. The respondent has filed
a motion to dismiss alleging that the deprivation of earned credit time that Mr. Johnson wants
restored was applied to a sentence that has already expired and, therefore, nothing this Court does
could have any impact on the duration of his custody. Mr. Johnson has not responded to the motion
to dismiss and his time to do so has passed. For the reasons set forth below, the respondent’s
unopposed motion to dismiss [dkt. 15] is granted and this action is dismissed as moot. Mr.
Johnson’s motion for court access [dkt. 11] is therefore denied as moot.
Mr. Johnson received a two-year sentence for criminal confinement. His maximum release
date (“MRD”) is January 15, 2016. On January 15, 2015, Mr. Johnson was found guilty of
disciplinary offense A-108 (escape). His sanctions included 180 days earned credit time
deprivation. Mr. Johnson filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the disciplinary
convictions on April 27, 2015.

Prisoners in Indiana custody may not be deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss,
381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004), or of credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d
641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001), without due process. Prisoners may allege such a violation by bringing
a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
“A case becomes moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution.” Eichwedel v. Curry, 700 F.3d 275, 278 (7th Cir. 2012). “In general
a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). A federal court
may issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) only if it finds the applicant “is
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Therefore, a
habeas action becomes moot if the Court can no longer “affect the duration of [the petitioner’s]
custody.” White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir. 2001).
Parole is a form of custody, and under Indiana law, “parole never lasts more than two years,
or the end of the sentence, whichever comes first.” Id. (citing Ind. Code § 35-50-6-1). There is thus
a “link between good-time credits and release on parole.” Id. If the loss of good-time credits
extends the petitioner’s release date such that it extends the date on which the petitioner’s parole
ends, then the habeas petition could affect the duration of the petitioner’s custody and release to
parole does not render a petition moot. Id. But if the loss of good-time credits does not extend the
date on which parole ends, the petitioner’s release from prison to parole renders the habeas petition
moot. Id.
Here, Mr. Johnson’s parole will end on MRD of January 15, 2016, regardless of whether
he impermissibly lost good-time credits or not. Therefore, because Mr. Johnson’s loss of goodtime credits did not extend the date his parole will be terminated, his habeas petition cannot affect

the duration of his custody, the habeas action is moot, see id., and an action which is moot must
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, see Diaz v. Duckworth, 143 F.3d 345, 347 (7th Cir. 1998).
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/22/2015

Distribution:
DARNELL LEVON JOHNSON
421 Wheeler Ave.
Anderson, IN 46016
Electronically Registered Counsel