Arthur Boyd vs Superintendent Westville Correctional Facility, No. 3:2008cv00134 - Document 14 (N.D. Ind. 2008)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Finding 3 Amended Petition Moot and GRANTING 11 Motion to Dismiss, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 9/24/08. (jld)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA ARTHUR G. BOYD, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:08-CV-134 TLS OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Arthur G. Boyd, a pro se prisoner, filed an Amended Habeas Corpus Petition [DE 3] seeking to have this Court enforce [the] order granted on April 18, 2006 by Porter Superior Court allotting petitioner 299 credit days for 299 actual days served. (Am. Pet. ¶ 15, DE 3 at 9.) In response, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss [DE 11] along with a Memorandum in Support [DE 12], and the Petitioner then filed a Traverse [DE 13]. The Respondent argues that the case is moot because Boyd has received the credit time as ordered. Randall Short, Supervisor of Offender Placement Services for the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC), provided the following information to support that claim in a signed declaration: 2. I have reviewed the DOC s Offender Information System on Arthur G. Boyd, DOC number 983851. I have also reviewed Judge Mary R. Harper s Order Granting Modification of Sentencing Order issued in Cause Number 64D050205-FB-4072 and dated April 18, 2006. I can attest that the DOC is in compliance with this Order because the DOC has credited Mr. Garner with 299 days physically served and 299 days of earned credit time for a total of 598 days (Exhibit 1B). 3. The attached Credit Calculation Detail reflects that Mr. Boyd was properly credited with 299 days time served and 299 days earned credit time (Exhibit 1B). (Decl. of Randall Short, DE 12-2 at 1) (emphasis added). Attached to the Declaration is the Petitioner s Detail Credit Time Calculation as of August 6, 2008. Although Short s Declaration [DE 12-2] erroneously references a Mr. Garner, this appears to be a scrivener s error because it also twice mentions Boyd by name and once by IDOC number. Also, attached to the Declaration is the Petitioner s Detail Credit Time Calculation. Although the Petitioner tries to make an issue of this error in his Traverse, the sole question before the Court is whether he has received proper credit for his time served. Therefore, it is irrelevant that the Declaration erroneously mentions a Mr. Garner. In his Traverse, the Petitioner argues that [t]here [are] no records to show that the respondent complied with court order, (Traverse ¶ 1, DE 13-1 at 1), and that From petitioner s sentencing date of 3-04-2003 till the current time, including but not limited to all the credit days loss, petitioner s record still only reflect 299 actual days, and not the additional 299 credit days for a total of 598 days. (Id. at ¶ 7, DE 13-1 at 4). It is true that the Detail Credit Time Calculation report (Resp t Ex. 1B, DE 12-2 at 2) can be difficult to read and understand because it contains many rows and columns of numbers. Nevertheless, the review here is straightforward because it only requires a few pieces of data from this report, which is attached as an Appendix to this Order. After the column headings, the second row of information demonstrates that the Petitioner received the credit time at issue here. Under the heading TIME SERVD, the report shows 299, which indicates that he has received credit for the 299 days that he actually physically served. In that same row, under the heading EARND CR TM, the report shows 299, which indicates that he has received credit for the 299 days of earned credit time 2 associated with the 299 days that he actually served. This means that he indeed did receive the 299 days credit time in addition to the 299 days he actually served, for a total of 598 days credited against his prison term. This is confirmed by reviewing the numbers in the column titled REMN TIME, which shows how much time he has remaining to be served. The first number in that column shows that he began with 4749 days remaining to be served, and, after subtracting the 598 days credited by that row, he then had 4151 days remaining (4749-4151=598). Because the Petitioner has received credit for these days, the Amended Petition [DE 3] is moot, and the Respondent s Motion to Dismiss (DE 11) is GRANTED. SO ORDERED on September 24, 2008. s/ Theresa L. Springmann THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORT WAYNE DIVISION 3 Appendix to Court s Order [DE 14] in Boyd v. Superintendent, 3:08-CV-134-TS. The table below is Exhibit 1B of the Respondent s Memorandum in Support [DE 12-2 at 2]. 4

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.