THOMPSON v. LEVENHAGEN

Filing 21

ENTRY Discussing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus - The action Thompson filed is moot. The subsequent proceedings cannot be challenged in this case. An action which is moot must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent's motion to dismiss 17 is therefore granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/16/2011.(Copy to petitioner via US mail)(VS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JEROME J. THOMPSON,
Petitioner,
v.
MR. LEVENHAGEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:11-cv-76-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
This is an action in which Jerome Thompson, a state prisoner, seeks a writ of
habeas corpus based on his claim that a prison disciplinary proceeding was
constitutionally tainted. The respondent has moved to dismiss the action as moot
because, it is argued, the challenged proceeding has been administratively dismissed.
The petitioner has filed a motion to stay—mistakenly reciting that a judgment has
been issued in this action and noting that a rehearing of the disciplinary case will be or has
already been tainted with constitutional error.
No final judgment has been issued in this action. More importantly, moreover, the
premise of Thompson’s motion is that the validity of the results at the rehearing can be
challenged along with the results of the now-vacated original resolution of the charge.
This premise is incorrect. The rehearing, if it results in a finding of guilt and the imposition
of a sanction affecting the expected duration of Thompson’s confinement, will have to be
challenged in a separate habeas proceeding, and then only after any available
administrative appeals have been pursued.
The action Thompson filed is moot. The subsequent proceedings cannot be
challenged in this case. An action 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). The respondent’s motion to
dismiss [17] is therefore granted.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
09/16/2011
Date: __________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana