BORKHOLDER v. WARDEN, No. 2:2023cv00225 - Document 12 (S.D. Ind. 2023)
Court Description: ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT - The respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. 9 , is granted. Mr. Borkholder's petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Borkholder's motion to withdraw his petition, dkt. 11 , is denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter final judgment consistent with this Entry. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 8/3/2023. (KAA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BORKHOLDER v. WARDEN Doc. 12 Case 2:23-cv-00225-JPH-MJD Document 12 Filed 08/03/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION JOSHUA BORKHOLDER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. No. 2:23-cv-00225-JPH-MJD ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Joshua Borkholder's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges his conviction in disciplinary proceeding ISF 23-01-0199. The respondent moves to dismiss the petition because on June 20, 2023, the Indiana Department of Correction vacated Mr. Borkholder's guilty finding and sanctions. See dkts. 9, 9-1. Mr. Borkholder agrees, and has moved to withdraw his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. 11. "[I]n all habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the successful petitioner must demonstrate that he 'is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'" Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 611 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). To be considered "in custody" for purposes of a challenge to a prison disciplinary conviction, the petitioner must have been deprived of good-time credits, Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), or of credit-earning class, Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2001). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-00225-JPH-MJD Document 12 Filed 08/03/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28 A case becomes moot, and the federal courts lose subject matter jurisdiction, when a justiciable controversy ceases to exist between the parties. See Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) ("if an event occurs while a case is pending . . . that makes it impossible for the court to grant 'any effectual relief whatever' to a prevailing party, the [case] must be dismissed") (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988) (grounding mootness doctrine in the Constitution's Article III requirement that courts adjudicate only "actual, ongoing cases or controversies"). "A case is moot when issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (internal citations omitted). This action is now moot because Mr. Borkholder's petition no longer challenges a disciplinary action that affects the fact or duration of his custody. A moot case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Board of Educ. of Downers Grove Grade Sch. Dist. No. 58 v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 (1997). When it is determined that a court lacks jurisdiction, its only course of action is to announce that fact and dismiss the case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) ("'Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.'") (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L. Ed. 264 (1868)). Accordingly, the respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. [9], is granted. Mr. Borkholder's petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Borkholder's 2 Case 2:23-cv-00225-JPH-MJD Document 12 Filed 08/03/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 29 motion to withdraw his petition, dkt. [11], is denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter final judgment consistent with this Entry. SO ORDERED. Date: 8/3/2023 Distribution: JOSHUA BORKHOLDER 127672 PUTNAMVILLE - CF PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant – Court Only Natalie Faye Weiss INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL natalie.weiss@atg.in.gov 3
]]>
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.
