Sample v. Warden, No. 3:2018cv00281 - Document 12 (N.D. Ind. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Motion to Dismiss (DE 10) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 10/29/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)

Download PDF
Sample v. Warden Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION CURTIS F. SAMPLE, JR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-281-JD-MGG OPINION AND ORDER Curtis F. Sample, Jr., a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his prison disciplinary hearing in ISP 17-06-0238 where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) at the Indiana State Prison found him guilty of making or possessing intoxicants in violation of B-231 on June 29, 2017. ECF 1 at 1. As a result, Sample was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit time and a one-step demotion in credit class. Id. After Sample filed his petition, the finding of guilt and sanctions were vacated. ECF 10 at 5. The Warden has filed a motion to dismiss because this case is now moot. ECF 10. Sample did not file a response and the time for doing so has passed. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(2)(A). Regardless, the court cannot overturn the disciplinary proceeding and restore his time because the Indiana Department of Correction has already vacated the proceeding and restored his time. That is to say, Sample has already won and there is no case left for this court to decide. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can Dockets.Justia.com challenge prison disciplinary determination in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of his confinement). For these reasons, the motion (ECF 10) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED on October 29, 2018 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.