Opinion
23-cv-345-SE
07-18-2023
Brian Miranda-Ortiz v. FCI Berlin Warden
Brian Miranda-Ortiz, pro se
Brian Miranda-Ortiz, pro se
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ANDREA K. JOHNSTONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Brian Miranda-Ortiz's petition for a writ of ha under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is here for prel See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Cases (“§ 2254 Rules”); LR 4.3(d)(4)(A); see also § (§ 2254 Rules may apply to § 2241 petitions).
Pursuant to § 2254 Rule 4, a federal judge must screen § 2241 petitions and, if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243; McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (courts “are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”). The issue of whether petitioner's habeas petition is moot may be raised sua sponte at this stage of the case. See Awan v. Hollingsworth, No. 14-cv-3798 (RBK), 2014 WL 7051769, at *1, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172142, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2014). And the court may take judicial notice of publicly-available information from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Inmate Locator in this context. See, e.g., id.; see also United States v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (taking judicial notice of information from BOP Online Inmate Locator).
The petitioner filed this petition while he was a prisoner in BOP custody. The petitioner sought court-ordered relief as he anticipated that the BOP would prolong his custody beyond his anticipated release date of July 14, 2023. The petitioner sought an order directing that the BOP release him on July 14, 2023.
The BOP Online Inmate Locator states that the petitioner was released from BOP custody on July 14, 2023. The petitioner's release appears to have mooted his petition, see Francis v. Maloney, 798 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2015), as he has obtained the relief he sought. The district judge should dismiss this case, and the clerk should enter judgment and close the case.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. The objection period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in the written objections are subject to review in the district court, and any issues not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal. Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).