Wilkie v. Warden
This text of Wilkie v. Warden (Wilkie 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JOHN WILKIE,
Petitioner,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:25-CV-270-JD-AZ
WARDEN,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER John Wilkie, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 24-8-2142) at the Indiana State Prison in which a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) found him guilty of engaging in an unauthorized financial transaction in violation of Indiana Department of Correction Offense 220. Following a hearing, he was sanctioned with a loss of ninety days earned credit time. In the pending motion to dismiss, the Warden argues that this case is moot. He explains that Wilkie was sanctioned with a loss of earned credit time but that that sanction was suspended and can no longer be imposed. ECF 6. The Warden supports this argument with the hearing report and printouts from the departmental inmate database. ECF 6-8; ECF 6-13; ECF 6-14. Consequently, the court finds that the claims raised in the petition are moot. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary determination in habeas proceeding only when it resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of his confinement). Because the claims are moot, the court grants the motion and dismisses the habeas petition.
If Wilkie wants to appeal this decision, he does not need a certificate of appealability because he is challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. See Evans v. Circuit Court, 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009). However, he may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the court finds that an appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal in this case could not be taken in good faith. For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS the motion to dismiss (ECF 6); (2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment and to close this case; and (3) DENIES John Wilkie leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. SO ORDERED on July 28, 2025
/s/JON E. DEGUILIO JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wilkie v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkie-v-warden-innd-2025.