From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. Superintendent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION
Sep 5, 2017
CAUSE NO. 3:17CV319-PPS (N.D. Ind. Sep. 5, 2017)

Opinion

CAUSE NO. 3:17CV319-PPS

09-05-2017

JUSTIN JAMES EUGENE CLARK, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.


OPINION AND ORDER

Justin James Eugene Clark, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in ISP 17-01-101 where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found him guilty of assault with bodily fluids in violation of Indiana Department of Correction Policy A-102. ECF 2 at 1. As a result, he was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit time.

After Clark filed his petition, the finding of guilt was vacated, his earned credit time was restored, and the matter was expunged from his record. ECF 16-1. The Respondent has filed an amended motion to dismiss because this case is now moot. ECF 16. Clark responded, arguing that dismissal of his petition "would fail to hold the Respondent responsible for their failure to uphold policies within the department of corrections." ECF 18. However, the scope of this court's review is limited to determining whether Clark's due process rights were violated by the imposition of his discipline in ISP 17-01-216. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) ("state-law violations provide no basis for federal habeas relief"); Keller v. Donahue, 271 F. App'x 531, 532 (7th Cir. 2008) (inmate's claim that prison failed to follow internal policies had "no bearing on his right to due process"). Because the challenged disciplinary proceeding and sanctions have been vacated, this case must be dismissed. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary determination in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of his confinement).

For these reasons:

(1) Respondent's Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF 16) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED;

(2) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 14) is DENIED AS MOOT;

(3) Petitioner's Petition to Contest Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18) is DENIED; and

(4) the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: September 5, 2017

/s/ Philip P. Simon

Judge

United States District Court


Summaries of

Clark v. Superintendent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION
Sep 5, 2017
CAUSE NO. 3:17CV319-PPS (N.D. Ind. Sep. 5, 2017)
Case details for

Clark v. Superintendent

Case Details

Full title:JUSTIN JAMES EUGENE CLARK, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Date published: Sep 5, 2017

Citations

CAUSE NO. 3:17CV319-PPS (N.D. Ind. Sep. 5, 2017)