Opinion
1:20-cv-00166
01-25-2022
HEATHER ANN LYNN, Petitioner, v. M.E. REHERMAN, Warden, Respondent.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Dwane L. Tinsley United States Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the court are Petitioner, Heather Ann Lynn's (“Lynn”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 2) and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition (ECF No. 15). This matter is assigned to the Honorable David A. Faber, Senior United States District Judge, and it is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At the time she filed the instant petition, Lynn was incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp at Alderson, West Virginia (“FPC Alderson”), serving a 33-month term of imprisonment imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Lynn's federal sentence was ordered to run concurrent with certain Tennessee state sentences previously imposed. The instant petition seeks additional sentencing credit as further set forth in her petition.
On June 2, 2020, Respondent filed a response to the petition asserting that Lynn has received all prior custody credit to which she is entitled. (ECF No. 12). Respondent has now filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition (ECF No. 15) asserting that Lynn was released from BOP custody on March 15, 2021, and, thus, her request for relief can no longer be granted and her petition is moot.
ANALYSIS
The United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual cases or controversies that are present at all stages of review. U.S. Const., art. III, § 2; Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988); Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). When a case or controversy no longer exists, the claim is said to be “moot.” In the context of habeas corpus, a case is rendered moot when the inmate has been released from the custody being challenged, without collateral consequences, and the court can no longer remedy the inmate's grievance. See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Alston v. Adams, 178 Fed.Appx. 295, 2006 WL 1194751 (4th Cir. 2007); Alvarez v. Conley, 145 Fed.Appx. 428, 2005 WL 2500659 (4th Cir. 2005); Smithhart v. Gutierrez, No. 3:06-cv-11, 2007 WL 2897942 (N.D. W.Va. 2007). As noted above, Lynn has been released from BOP custody; thus, this federal court is no longer able to grant her requested relief.
Therefore, the undersigned proposes that the presiding District Judge FIND that Lynn's § 2241 petition is now moot due to her release from BOP custody. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the presiding District Judge GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Petition (ECF No. 15), DENY AS MOOT Lynn's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 2) and dismiss this matter from the docket of the court.
The parties are notified that this Proposed Findings and Recommendation is hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable David A. Faber, Senior United States District Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), Rules 6(d) and 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 1(b) and 8(b) of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District Courts Under Section 2254 of Title 28, United States Code, the parties shall have fourteen days (filing of objections) and then three days (service/mailing) from the date of filing this Proposed Findings and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted by the presiding District Judge for good cause shown.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Copies of such objections shall be served on the opposing party and Judge Faber.
The Clerk is directed to file this Proposed Findings and Recommendation and to mail a copy of the same to Lynn at her last known address and to transmit a copy to counsel of record.