Opinion
1:21-cv-00357
05-13-2024
JOSE LUIS RAMIREZ-VERDUZCO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI MCDOWELL, Respondent.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Dwane L. Tinsley United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the court are Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15), asserting that Petitioner's petition is moot. 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
Petitioner filed the instant petition challenging a disciplinary proceeding resulting in the loss of 27-days of good conduct time (“GCT”). (ECF No. 1 at 6-7). Petitioner asserts that his disciplinary hearing occurred without the assistance of an interpreter, despite his request for one, when all of the documents and evidence were not in his native tongue, and that he was also denied access to video footage and the ability to call a witness. (Id. at 7-9). Finally, Petitioner contends that he was denied the right to appeal the decision when his appeal was rejected as untimely. (Id. at 7-8). He seeks expungement of the disciplinary violation and restoration of his GCT. (Id. at 9).
Petitioner's petition is fully briefed. (See ECF Nos. 9 and 14). However, as noted in Respondent's recently filed Motion to Dismiss, the petition must be dismissed because Petitioner was subsequently released from BOP custody on February 1, 2024, and his request for relief is moot. (ECF No. 15 at 1-3).
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, Petitioner has been released from BOP custody; thus, this federal court is no longer able to grant his requested relief. Therefore, the undersigned proposes that the presiding District Judge FIND that Petitioner's § 2241 petition is now moot due to his release from BOP custody without collateral consequences. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the presiding District Judge GRANT Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15), DENY AS MOOT Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1), 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 Judge Faber.
The Clerk is directed to file this Proposed Findings and Recommendation and to mail a copy of the same to Petitioner at his last known address.