WEBB v. EMERSON

Filing 21

ENTRY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - Although Mr. Webb's release from IDOC custody does not negate the fact that he was "in custody" when he filed his petition, the petition is now moot because he has been released an d has not argued that he is suffering any continuing "collateral consequences." An action which is moot must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Order) Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/2/2025.(KAA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
KEIONTAE WEBB,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
D. EMERSON,
Respondent.

No. 2:23-cv-00153-JPH-MKK

ENTRY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
The petition of Keiontae Webb for a writ of habeas corpus challenges a
disciplinary proceeding, STP-22-08-0074, in which he was found guilty of
violating prison rules on September 6, 2022, while he was an Indiana
Department of Correction (IDOC) inmate. On September 19, 2024, dkt. 15, the
Court ordered the parties to show cause why this action should not be dismissed
as moot because Mr. Webb was discharged from IDOC custody on December 27,
2023. The respondent responded, urging the Court to dismiss the case as moot
because Mr. Webb completed his sentence. Dkt. 19. The petitioner has not
responded to the Order to Show Cause. The Order was returned to the Court
marked "undeliverable – no longer at Putnamville." Dkt. 20. Mr. Webb has not
reported a change of address.
"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
1

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).
Although Mr. Webb's release from IDOC custody does not negate the fact
that he was "in custody" when he filed his petition, the petition is now moot
because he has been released and has not argued that he is suffering any
continuing "collateral consequences." See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-14
(1998) (ruling that a petitioner must demonstrate that he suffers continuing
collateral consequences after release from prison following parole revocation to
satisfy Article III's injury-in-fact requirement).
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.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 1/2/2025

2

Distribution:
KEIONTAE WEBB
283681
PUTNAMVILLE - CF
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
All electronically registered counsel

3