Sample v. Warden, No. 3:2018cv00283 - Document 10 (N.D. Ind. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 8 Motion to Dismiss, The case is DISMISSED and the Clerk is directed to close this case. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 11/8/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)

Download PDF
Sample v. Warden Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION CURTIS F. SAMPLE, JR., Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-283-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 17-06-0267 where a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) at the Indiana State Prison found him guilty of sexual contact against staff without consent in violation of B-204 on July 7, 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 8 at 5. The Warden has filed a motion to dismiss because this case is now moot. ECF 8. 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 8) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED on November 8, 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.