ODEN v. SUPERINTENDENT, 3:15-CV-195. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20151125d53
Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 23, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER RUDY LOZANO , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Petition (DE 5) under 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jared Oden, a pro se prisoner, on June 3, 2015. In the petition he is challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 14-11-262) where the Westville Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Trafficking in violation of prison rule A-113 on November 19, 2014, and deprived him of 120 days e
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER RUDY LOZANO , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Petition (DE 5) under 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jared Oden, a pro se prisoner, on June 3, 2015. In the petition he is challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 14-11-262) where the Westville Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Trafficking in violation of prison rule A-113 on November 19, 2014, and deprived him of 120 days ea..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
RUDY LOZANO, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Petition (DE 5) under 28 U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jared Oden, a pro se prisoner, on June 3, 2015. In the petition he is challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (WCC 14-11-262) where the Westville Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Trafficking in violation of prison rule A-113 on November 19, 2014, and deprived him of 120 days earned credit time and demoted him from Credit Class 1 to Credit Class 2. In response, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that "[b]ecause the conviction and sanctions at issue in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this case have been vacated, the challenged proceeding is now moot, and this Court lacks a case or controversy or adjudicate." DE 10 at 2. The Respondent has also attached a letter from the Indiana Department of Correction stating that the sanctions have been vacated. DE 10-2. Because the sanctions have been vacated, this case must be dismissed. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003).
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss (DE 10) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Source: Leagle
