Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03376/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03376-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

*

 This opinion was released initially in typescript form.

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

_________________

No. 09-3376

ANDRE V. POWELL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BRUCE LEMMON, Superintendent,

Respondent-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Indiana,

Terre Haute Division.

No. 2:08-cv-00355-LJM-JMS–Larry J. McKinney, Judge.

 

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

FEBRUARY 12, 2010*

 

Case: 09-3376 Document: 19 Filed: 02/12/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09-3376 Page 2

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge (in chambers). Andre Powell brought a

habeas action challenging his prison’s imposition of disciplinary sanctions.

He pleaded himself out of court, however, by revealing in his petition that the

prison already had vacated its discipline order and had scheduled a new

hearing. The district court consequently dismissed the petition as moot. Mr.

Powell moved the court to reconsider; it declined to do so. He also moved

for relief from judgment. The court denied this motion. Mr. Powell’s appeal

is timely only as to the denial of his motion for relief from judgment. 

By order dated February 8, 2010, this court, agreeing with the district

court, denied permission to proceed in forma pauperis. In that order, the

court gave Mr. Powell 14 days to pay the required docketing fee or to

withdraw his appeal.

Before me today is a motion filed by Mr. Powell on the same day as

our earlier order. Since Mr. Powell is incarcerated, it no doubt left his

control on an earlier date. In that motion, Mr. Powell states that the dispute

is moot and asks that we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This

motion falls within the ambit of F.R.A.P. 42(b) and an order may be entered

by the Clerk dismissing the appeal. Because Mr. Powell took this action well

within the time permitted for the withdrawal of his appeal without the

payment of the docketing fee, he is not liable for that fee, and none should be

assessed.

Accordingly the Clerk is ordered to dismiss this appeal under

F.R.A.P. 42(b). In conformity with the court’s earlier order, no docketing fee

is to be paid. 

Case: 09-3376 Document: 19 Filed: 02/12/2010 Pages: 2