Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-0346
12-03-2020
TERRANCE L. SMITH, Petitioner v. WARDEN CATRICIA HOWARD, Respondent
(MARIANI, D.J.) ()
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 25, 2019, Terrance L. Smith ("Petitioner") filed a petition for write of habeas corpus challenging prison disciplinary proceedings at the Federal Correctional Institution in Allenwood, Pennsylvania ("FCI Allenwood"). (Doc. 1). As relief, Petitioner request that the Court order Respondent to reinstate 400 non-vested days of good conduct time and 82 vested days of good conduct time. Id. At the time this Petition was filed, Petitioner was incarcerated at FCI Allenwood. Id.
On November 12, 2020, Respondent filed a Suggestion of Mootness stating that Petitioner was released from federal custody on November 2, 2020. (Doc. 15). Respondent argues that, because Petitioner was released, this Petition is moot. Id. (citing Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (finding that "[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.").
For the reasons explained herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED AS MOOT; andII. DISCUSSION
(2) The clerk of court CLOSE this case.
Federal inmates possess a protected liberty interest in good conduct time because it affects the duration of a petitioner's confinement. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-57 (1974). "A challenge . . . to a disciplinary action that resulted in the loss of good-time credits, is properly brought pursuant to § 2241, as the action could affect the duration of the petitioner's confinement." Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 254 n.2 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)). At the time it was filed, this Petitioner was properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, Respondent is correct that, upon Petitioner's release from custody his Petitioner seeking the restoration of good conduct time became moot.
As this Court has explained:
Article III of the United States Constitution provides that the ["]judicial power shall extend to... cases... [and] to controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. 'This grant of authority embodies a fundamental limitation restricting the federal courts to the adjudication of 'actual, ongoing cases or controversies.'" County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 192-93 (3d Cir. 2001)). "The mootness
doctrine is centrally concerned with the court's ability to grant effective relief: 'If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.'" Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d at 533 (quoting Blanciak, 77 F.3d at 98-99). [The] requirement ["]that an action involve a live case or controversy extends through all phases of litigation, including appellate review. See Khodara Envtl., Inc., 237 F.3d at 193 (citing Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990))." Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d at 533. Once a petitioner has been released from custody, "some continuing injury, also referred to as a collateral consequence, must exist for the action to continue." Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009).Fumea v. Sauers, No. 3:13-CV-2463, 2015 WL 7069332 at *1 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2015).
"[W]here a federal prisoner who has been released from federal imprisonment . . ., challenges the forfeiture of good conduct time as a result of a prison disciplinary proceeding, there are no collateral consequences from the forfeiture as to provide a basis of jurisdiction." Scott v. Warden, F.C.I. Schuylkill, No. 2007 WL 3355907 at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 7, 2007). Instead, such challenges are rendered moot when the Petitioner is released. Id. (citing Williams v. Sherman, 214 F. App'x 264 (3d Cir. 2007); Hinton v. Miner, 138 F. App'x 484 (3d Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, I find that this Petition, challenging the loss of good conduct time as a result of a prison disciplinary proceeding, is now moot because Petitioner has been released from federal custody. III. RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED AS MOOT.Date: December 3, 2020
(2) The clerk of court should CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT
s/William I . Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge
NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 72.3
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.Date: December 3, 2020
BY THE COURT
s/William I . Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge