AMOS v. BROWN, No. 2:2019cv00224 - Document 10 (S.D. Ind. 2020)

Court Description: ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT - The respondents motion to dismiss, dkt. 7 , is GRANTED, and Mr. Amoss petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Amoss motion for discovery, dkt. 9 , is DENIED as moot. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. See Order. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 2/5/2020. (KAA) (Main Document 10 replaced on 2/5/2020 with correct document) (KAA). Modified on 2/5/2020 (KAA).

Download PDF

AMOS v. BROWN Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION ROYAL AMOS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. DICK BROWN, Respondent. No. 2:19-cv-00224-JPH-MJD ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Royal Amos’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges his conviction in prison disciplinary case WVD 18-11-0035. The sanctions against Mr. Amos included a temporary loss of certain privileges, three months’ confinement in disciplinary restrictive housing, the deprivation of 90 days’ earned credit time, and a demotion in credit-earning class. Dkt. 7-3. The suspended penalties of credit-time deprivation and credit-class demotion have not been enforced, see dkt. 109 at 14, and the time for doing so has passed. Pursuant to Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) policy, a suspended sanction may not be enforced more than six months after the disciplinary action where the sanction was imposed. See dkt. 7-7 at 37. Mr. Amos was sanctioned at a disciplinary hearing on November 14, 2018. See dkt. 7-3. Because IDOC did not enforce the sanctions within six months of the hearing, it is now foreclosed from enforcing them. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the basis that Mr. Amos has not and will not suffer a deprivation of the type that can be redressed in a Section 2254 action. Dkt. [7]. 1 Dockets.Justia.com “[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, 64445 (7th Cir. 2001). 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 WVD 18-11-0035 has not affected—and cannot affect moving forward—the fact or duration of Mr. Amos’s custody. The IDOC may no longer apply the suspended sanctions that resulted from this case. A moot case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Bd. of Educ. of Downers Grove Grade School Dist. No. 58 v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1556 (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 Environment, 523 U.S. 2 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)). Therefore, the respondent’s motion to dismiss, dkt. [7], is GRANTED, and Mr. Amos’s petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Amos’s motion for discovery, dkt. [9], is DENIED as moot. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. SO ORDERED. Date: 2/5/2020 Distribution: ROYAL AMOS 953731 WABASH VALLEY - CF WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels Electronic Service Participant – Court Only David Corey INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL david.corey@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.