Opinion
C/A 5:23-1806-RMG-KDW
06-12-2024
James DeJesus Martinez, Petitioner, v. Warden Joseph, F.C.I. Bennettsville, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
James DeJesus Martinez (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner challenges the manner in which the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is applying his earned time credits to his sentence. Id. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 25. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Petitioner of the dismissal procedures and of the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to Respondent's Motion. ECF No. 26. Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion on September 28, 2023. ECF No. 29. On January 10, 2024, Petitioner file a motion to expedite a ruling on his Petition. ECF No. 37. On June 5, 2024, the undersigned directed Respondent to file with the court a status report on Petitioner's incarceration. ECF No. 40. On June 6, 2024, Respondent informed the court that Petitioner was released from BOP's custody on May 29, 2024, via First Step Act release. ECF No. 42. Respondent further advised Petitioner was released to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement based upon their detainer placed for possible deportation. Id. Because Petitioner is no longer in BOP's custody, a substantive ruling on the issues raised in his Petition and in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is no longer needed as such a ruling would be moot.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner indicates that following a jury trial he was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, conspiracy to import cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 963, importation of cocaine, 21 USC § 952(a), and attempt to kill, 18 USC §1512(a)(1)(C). ECF No. 1 at 2. Petitioner states the district court sentenced him to life imprisonment that was subsequently modified to 420-months imprisonment, with five years of supervised release. Id. at 3.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on May 1, 2023. ECF No. 1. At the time Petitioner filed his Petition he was incarcerated at FCI Bennettsville, a BOP facility. Id. In his Petition, Petitioner contends the BOP and Respondent failed to award him with all his First Step Act earned time credits. Id. at 8. Petitioner asks the court to issue an order to Respondent and the BOP to immediately apply all his First Step earned time credits to date, to calculate his applicable early release date, and to release Petitioner on that date. Id. at 9.
The BOP Inmate Locator indicates Petitioner was released from custody on May 29, 2024. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/; see also June 6, 2024, status report. Because Petitioner has received the relief he ultimately sought in his § 2241 Petition under review-to be released-his Petition may be dismissed as moot. Cf. Williams v. Holland, 735 Fed.Appx. 120, 121 (4th Cir. 2018) (dismissing § 2241 petitioner's appeal as moot because petitioner had been sentenced to time served and released).
II. Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the Petition in this matter be dismissed without prejudice. This recommendation would also make Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 25, and Petitioner's Motion to Expedite Ruling, ECF No. 37, moot.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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).