Filing 27

ENTRY and Order Dismissing Action - The respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot [Dkt. 25 ] is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Order.) Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/12/2017.(JLS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JOHN BOCHNER, Petitioner, vs. SUPERINTENDENT, New Castle Correctional Facility, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:15-cv-001764-TWP-DKL Respondent. Entry and Order Dismissing Action This matter is before the Court on Petitioner John Bochner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, with respect to a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. NCF 15-06-0146. In the course of this action, the Indiana Department of Correction reviewed the disciplinary case and decided to dismiss the disciplinary hearing board’s guilty verdict and rescind the sanctions including the earned credit time loss. The Respondent argues that because the conviction and sanctions challenged in this case have been vacated and completely dismissed this action is now moot and must be dismissed. Bochner has not opposed the Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot [Dkt. 25]. A case becomes moot, and the federal courts lose subject matter jurisdiction, when a justiciable controversy ceases to exist between the parties. See 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)); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988) (grounding mootness doctrine in the Constitution’s Article III requirement that courts adjudicate only “actual, ongoing cases or controversies”). “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). The development described above, being that the finding of misconduct was vacated and the sanctions rescinded, renders the action moot. 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 Petition as Moot [Dkt.25] is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 4/12/2017 Electronic distribution to counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to: JOHN BOCHNER 933118 NEW CASTLE - CF NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels 1000 Van Nuys Road NEW CASTLE, IN 47362

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?