Tayr Kilaab al Ghashiyah (Khan) v. Gary R. Mccaughtry

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOTICE October 19, 1995 A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62, STATS. This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. No. 95-0993 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV TAYR KILAAB AL GHASHIYAH (KHAN), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GARY R. MCCAUGHTRY, Respondent-Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dodge County: THOMAS W. WELLS, Judge. Dismissed. Before Eich, C.J., Sundby and Vergeront, JJ. PER CURIAM. Tayr Kilaab al Ghashiyah (Khan) is an inmate in the Wisconsin correctional system who sought by certiorari to review the warden's denial of approval of a proposed visitor. On July 22, 1994, the warden approved his visitor. Therefore, his petition for certiorari seeks review of a matter which is now moot. We therefore dismiss his appeal. No. 95-0993 Khan concedes that whether his petition is moot "turns on whether the Court's ruling might afford some relief which the appellant has not already achieved." However, he requests that we direct the trial court to reverse the decision of the disciplinary committee because, "[t]here is absolutely no indication of other facts or evidence for support [of] respondent's removal of Ms. Stone in the first place, nor ... any sound reasoning to its interpretation of the rules." He argues that because he has not achieved his original goal of challenging the Department of Corrections' rules respecting approval of visitors, "[t]here still exist[s] further relief available to him and this action is not moot." We conclude, however, that a request to approve a visitor is fact specific. Therefore, in any other challenge to a denial of a visitor's request, the validity of the warden's disapproval may depend on other facts. Any decision we would make in this case would, therefore, be advisory. We therefore dismiss Khan's appeal. By the Court. Appeal dismissed. This opinion will not be published. See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS. -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.