Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-431-TLS
03-19-2013
JAMES CAPLINGER, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
James Caplinger, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (Petition, ECF No. 1.) On March 19, 2012, Caplinger was found guilty of possessing an electronic device at Plainfield Correctional Facility, and was sanctioned with a loss of 60 days earned time credits and a credit-class demotion. (Id. at 1.) After Caplinger filed this Petition, the Indiana Department of Correction final reviewing authority dismissed the disciplinary case at issue and vacated the sanctions that were imposed. (ECF No. 7-1 at 1.)
Based on the final reviewing authority's actions, the Respondent moves to dismiss the Petition as moot. (Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7.) As the Respondent points out, because the sanctions have been vacated, this case cannot proceed. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2003) (stating that a prisoner can pursue habeas relief to challenge a prison disciplinary determination only when a sanction was imposed that lengthened the duration of his confinement); see also Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006) ("For a case to be justiciable, a live controversy must continue to exist at all stages of review, not simply on the date the action was initiated."). More than 60 days have passed since the Motion to Dismiss was filed, and Caplinger has not filed a response or objection to the motion. Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7]. The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED.
_________________
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION