Hilton v. Warden

N.D. Indiana

Hilton v. Warden

DecidedJune 30, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-00191

StatusUnknown

This text of Hilton v. Warden (Hilton v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hilton v. Warden, (N.D. Ind. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER HILTON,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-191-JD-MGG

WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Christopher Hilton petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his disciplinary proceeding (MCF 19-06-0798) at the Miami Correctional Facility. In his response, the Warden is asking that Mr. Hilton’s petition be dismissed because, on June 24, 2020, the “Indiana Department of Correction vacated the guilty finding and sanctions and dismissed the disciplinary proceeding challenged in the petition.” (ECF 7 at 1.) For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion. “Article III of the Constitution confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding actual ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013). To establish that an actual case or controversy exists, the petitioner must demonstrate that he has suffered, or imminently will suffer, an actual concrete and particularized injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a judicial decision in his favor. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The case- or-controversy requirement “persist[s] throughout all stages of litigation.” Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2661. The disciplinary conviction and sanctions challenged by Mr. Hilton in his habeas petition have been vacated, the lost time has been restored, and the case has been

dismissed. Therefore, this case is moot. See Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding that habeas petition was moot, where suspended deprivation of credit time could no longer be imposed). As a result, the Court GRANTS the Warden’s motion (ECF 7) and DISMISSES this case as moot. See Board of Educ. of Downers Grove Grade School Dist. No. 58 v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Absent an actual live controversy, a case is moot and must be dismissed as nonjusticiable.”).

SO ORDERED on June 30, 2020 /s/JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER HILTON,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-191-JD-MGG

WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Christopher Hilton petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his disciplinary proceeding (MCF 19-06-0798) at the Miami Correctional Facility. In his response, the Warden is asking that Mr. Hilton’s petition be dismissed because, on June 24, 2020, the “Indiana Department of Correction vacated the guilty finding and sanctions and dismissed the disciplinary proceeding challenged in the petition.” (ECF 7 at 1.) For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion. “Article III of the Constitution confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding actual ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013). To establish that an actual case or controversy exists, the petitioner must demonstrate that he has suffered, or imminently will suffer, an actual concrete and particularized injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a judicial decision in his favor. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The case- or-controversy requirement “persist[s] throughout all stages of litigation.” Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2661. The disciplinary conviction and sanctions challenged by Mr. Hilton in his habeas petition have been vacated, the lost time has been restored, and the case has been

dismissed. Therefore, this case is moot. See Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding that habeas petition was moot, where suspended deprivation of credit time could no longer be imposed). As a result, the Court GRANTS the Warden’s motion (ECF 7) and DISMISSES this case as moot. See Board of Educ. of Downers Grove Grade School Dist. No. 58 v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Absent an actual live controversy, a case is moot and must be dismissed as nonjusticiable.”).

SO ORDERED on June 30, 2020 /s/JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hilton v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilton-v-warden-innd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack