Case Name: ROTESH VIKASH SINGH, Appellant, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2002-11-20
Citations: 185 Or. App. 159
Docket Number: 01-05-1104 M; A116703
Parties: ROTESH VIKASH SINGH, Appellant, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Respondent.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Brewer, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 185
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 29,
appeal dismissed November 20, 2002
ROTESH VIKASH SINGH, Appellant, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Respondent.
01-05-1104 M; A116703
57 P3d 975
Bob Pangburn argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Kathleen Cegla argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Brewer, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was held in disciplinary segregation without a hearing. The trial court issued a writ, and defendant filed a return alleging that plaintiffs confinement and the conditions of confinement were lawful. Meanwhile, plaintiff completed the term of disciplinary segregation, but remained incarcerated in the intensive management unit (IMU). His counsel, believing the case to be moot, did not file a replication. Defendant requested dismissal on the ground that the facts alleged in the return demonstrated that plaintiff was not eligible for habeas corpus relief. The trial court agreed and dismissed the petition.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing that, among other things, as long as he remained in IMU, the case was not moot and that the trial court should have granted habeas corpus relief on the basis of the facts alleged in the petition. At oral argument, however, counsel for plaintiff advised the court that plaintiff is no longer in IMU and that the case now is moot. Defendant agrees. So do we. Pham v. Thompson, 156 Or App 440, 442-44, 965 P2d 482 (1998), rev den, 328 Or 246 (1999).
Appeal dismissed.