Source: https://casetext.com/case/thomas-v-chester-1
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:39:55+00:00

Document:
JERRY L. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. C. CHESTER, Warden, Respondent.
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case; accordingly, the Court has not restated either in detail.
[o]n [May 1, 2006,] ... I was conducting a new arrival review with Inmate Thomas . . . [and he] was instructed due to his name change the correct way to sign his name per policy # 060212 part II, section D. Inmate Thomas became loud and argumentative. He then proceeded to sign his name incorrectly to two separate [Oklahoma Department of Corrections] documents, to-wit: New Arrival Review [and] Offender Financial Responsibility Plan.
In 1990, Thomas legally changed his name to "Madyun Abdulhaseeb." E.g., Abdulhaseeb v. Saffle, 65 Fed. Appx. 667, 672 (10th Cir. 2003).
Following a hearing, JCCC officials found Thomas guilty of the misconduct charge and imposed punishment, which included the loss of earned credits and a temporary reduction from Level 4 to Level 1 earned credits status.
The misconduct charge was subsequently amended to "Individual Disruptive Behavior." See Doc. 12-2 at 37. After a hearing, Thomas was found guilty and punishment was again imposed. See id. at 41.
In so finding, the Court is mindful that in deciding whether a case has been mooted because the defendant has "temporarily alter[ed] questionable behavior," City News & Novelty. Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278, 284 n.1 (2001), that the defendant bears a heavy burden of showing that the challenged conduct-in this case, the misconduct identified in the Petition-cannot reasonably be expected to recur. The Court finds that ODOC has met its burden.
Thomas' arguments that the narrow exceptions to the mootness doctrine-actions that "are 'capable of repetition, yet evading review,'" Chihuahuan Grasslands Alliance v. Kempthorne, 545 F.3d 884, 892 (10th Cir. 2008)(quotation omitted), and "voluntary cessation of an alleged illegal practice which the defendant is free to resume at any time," id- (citation omitted),-govern in this instance are not persuasive. E.g.. Rhodes v. Judiscak, 676 F.3d 931, 935 (10th Cir. 2012)(case is moot if events have so transpired that decision will neither presently affect parties' rights nor have more-than-speculative chance of affecting them in the future). See Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1115 (10th Cir. 2010)(voluntary cessation of offensive conduct will only moot litigation if it is clear that defendant has not changed course simply to deprive court of jurisdiction).
(3) DENIES Thomas' Request for Evidentiary Hearing [Doc. 58] filed on May 6, 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.