Lambert v. Warden, Ross Correctional, 81 Fed.Appx. 1, 8 (6th Cir. 2003) ("Therefore, 26(B) applications are best classified as parts of collateral review under AEDPA."). More importantly, the Sixth Circuit made clear in Lambert (which was decided well before Lawrence) that the AEDPA's limitation period is not delayed for ninety days ( i.e., to seek certiorari) following the dismissal of a "collateral" appeal. Lambert, 81 Fed.Appx. at 3 (citing Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 345-48 (6th Cir. 2002).Lambert pre-dates Johnson's petition, which is relevant because Johnson's only objection to the Court's application of the limitation outlined in Lawrence v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 1086 (2007), is that Lawrence post-dates Johnson's petition.
This Court granted a certificate of appealability on April 20, 2001, and on October 30, 2002, denied the petition as untimely, and accordingly, declined to address the merits. Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court then agreed to hear the case en banc, and in 2003, vacated its prior opinion and judgment, holding that Abela's habeas petition was timely.
"If 'events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief,' the case becomes moot and thus falls outside our jurisdiction." Id. (quoting Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 343 (6th Cir. 2002)). But "[e]ven when an appellant has been released from custody, his case is not moot so long as the appeal 'potentially implicates' the length of the appellant's supervised release term."
" Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477-78, 110 S.Ct. 1249. If "events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief," the case becomes moot and thus falls outside our jurisdiction. Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 343 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). More specifically, a prisoner's "challenge to the validity of his conviction always satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration (or the restriction imposed by the terms of the parole) constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction."
The Supreme Court, however, recently clarified this issue, holding, as had every circuit court that had addressed the issue, that a petitioner's claim is "pending" for the entire term of state court review, including those intervals between one state court's judgment and the filing of an appeal with a higher state court. Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 2138, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002). Accord Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 345-46 (6th Cir. 2002). Because petitioner timely filed his application and appeals on collateral review in the state courts, he falls within the one-year statute of limitations under § 2244(d)(1).
A case becomes moot if “events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to render the requested relief ....” Demis, 558 F.3d at 508 (quoting Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 343 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotations marks omitted)). This can occur where “an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation” or where “the issues presented are no longer ‘live ....'”
"If 'events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief,' the case becomes moot and thus falls outside [the court's] jurisdiction." Demis, 558 F.3d at 512 (quoting Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 343 (6th Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff filed its complaint in 2012, when the Landfill still contained approximately 550,500 cubic yards of waste.
If “events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief,” the case becomes moot, and the court loses jurisdiction to entertain it. Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 343 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (“A case becomes moot-and therefore no longer a
If “events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief, ” the case becomes moot, and the court loses jurisdiction to entertain it. Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 343 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (“A case becomes moot-and therefore no longer a ‘Case' or ‘Controversy' for purposes of Article III - when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
At base, if "'events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief,' the case becomes moot and thus falls outside [the Court's] jurisdiction." Demis, 558 F. 3d at 512; (quoting Abela v. Martin, 309 F.3d 338, 343 (6th Cir. 2002). Here, the basis of Plaintiff's Complaint is the alleged conditions he was subject to while incarcerated at BeCI.