United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
EDWARD M. HAMPTON, Petitioner,
INDIANA PAROLE BOARD,  Respondent.
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Edward M. Hampton brought this action under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 to challenge a prison disciplinary proceeding in which
he lost 90 days' earned credit time and was demoted from
credit class I to credit class II. Respondent moves to
dismiss the Petition as moot because Hampton has since
obtained a sentence modification, been released from prison,
and had his sentence discharged. Hampton has not responded to
the motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the Motion
to Dismiss [dkt 11] is GRANTED.
is in the custody of the Indiana Parole Board, currently
serving parole on a Class B felony burglary conviction for
which he was originally sentenced to 10 years'
imprisonment. His parole began on July 30, 2015. He was not
released from prison on that date because he had yet to serve
his sentence for a separate conviction for possession of
time of the disciplinary proceeding challenged in the
petition, Hampton was serving a 10-year sentence for Class B
felony methamphetamine possession. The effective sentence
start date for the 10-year methamphetamine possession
sentence was May 5, 2015. At the time Hampton started serving
that sentence, his projected parole release date for that
sentence was May 4, 2020.
was charged with offense B-208, security threat group
activity on July 18, 2016. At the disciplinary hearing held
on August 2, 2016, Hampton was found guilty and sanctioned
with 90 days' lost earned credit time and a demotion from
credit class I to credit class II. After the discipline was
imposed, Hampton's projected release date was extended
from May 4, 2020, to October 3, 2021. On October 31, 2016,
Hampton was promoted back to credit class I. This action
moved forward Hampton's projected release date from
October 3, 2021, to July 10, 2020.
Hampton had filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a
motion for sentence modification in state court. The state
court conducted a hearing on November 1, 2016, and on
November 23, 2016, issued an order denying the petition for
post-conviction relief but granting the motion for sentence
modification. The state court modified and reduced
Hampton's sentence to time served as of November 23,
2016. Pursuant to the state trial court's order, Hampton
was released from prison that day and his sentence for
possession of methamphetamine was discharged. Hampton
currently remains on parole for the burglary sentence.
respondent argues that because the state court modified
Hampton's sentence for methamphetamine possession, his
disciplinary challenge in this case is moot.
case becomes moot when it no longer presents a case or
controversy under Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution.” Eichwedel v. Curry, 700 F.3d
275, 278 (7th Cir. 2012). “In general a case becomes
moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Id. (citation and quotation marks
omitted). A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) only if it finds the
applicant “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
Therefore, a habeas action becomes moot if the Court can no
longer “affect the duration of [the petitioner's]
custody.” White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d
759, 763 (7th Cir. 2001).
time Hampton was charged with security threat group activity
in July 2016, he was serving a 10-year sentence for
possessing methamphetamine. Before the discipline, his
projected release date from that sentence was May 4, 2020.
The discipline resulted in the extension of his projected
release date to October 3, 2021. Because Hampton later
received a credit class promotion, his projected release date
moved up to July 10, 2020. Then, on November 23, 2016, the
state court modified Hampton's sentence to time served as
of that date. Hampton was released from prison and his
sentence for possession of methamphetamine was discharged. In
other words, Hampton was released from prison about
three-and-a-half years before May 4, 2020, his projected
release date prior to the discipline. The disciplinary
sanctions thus had no effect on Hampton's release date
from his sentence for possession of methamphetamine. Further,
while Hampton is currently on parole, he is on parole for the
burglary sentence. That parole period began before the
disciplinary conviction and the disciplinary conviction thus
had no effect on the length of his parole. In short, even if
Hampton were granted relief in this case, that relief would
have no effect on his custody. This action is therefore moot.
foregoing reasons, the respondent's Motion to Dismiss
[dkt 11] is GRANTED. This action is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.