Jones v. Streeval, No. 0:2019cv00108 - Document 12 (E.D. Ky. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: (1) Jones's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2241 1 is DENIED as moot; (2) This action is STRICKEN from the docket; and (3) The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 12/26/19.(KSS)cc: COR, Jones (via US Mail)

Download PDF
Jones v. Streeval Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-108-DLB QUINCY JONES v. PETITIONER OPINION AND ORDER J.C. STREEVAL, WARDEN, RESPONDENT *** *** *** *** Quincy Jones is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Jones filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. # 1). Jones challenged a prison disciplinary conviction and sought the restoration of good conduct time. Id. The United States has now responded to Jones’s petition, stating that it has expunged the relevant disciplinary findings from Jones’s record and restored his lost good conduct time. (Doc. # 10). Given the Government’s representations to the Court, which it supports with documentary evidence, see (Doc. # 10-1), Jones’s petition is now moot. See, e.g., Baldwin v. Barnhart, No. 6:18-cv-248-REW, Doc. # 10 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 5, 2018) (explaining that no controversy remained because the petitioner’s disciplinary conviction was expunged from his record and prison officials restored his good conduct time); Adames v. Quintana, No. 5:11-cv-424-KSF, Doc. # 15 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 17, 2013) (the same). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Jones’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. #1) is DENIED as moot; (2) This action is STRICKEN from the docket; and (3) The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment. This 26th day of December, 2019. K:\DATA\ORDERS\ProSe\19-108 Order Dismissing Case as Moot.docx 2

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.