Opinion
Case No. 1:18-cv-01368
07-30-2019
ADEBISI ADIGUN, Petitioner, v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden, Respondent.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the court are the petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) and his Motion to Reinstate Good Conduct Time Credit (ECF No. 2). This matter is assigned to the Honorable David A. Faber, Senior United States District Judge, and, by Standing Order, 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
At the time he filed the instant petition, the petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution McDowell, in Welch, West Virginia. The instant petition and motion assert a due process challenge to a disciplinary action taken against the petitioner at FCC Hazelton, resulting in his loss of 27 days of good conduct time, among other sanctions. (ECF No. 8 at 6). The petitioner asserts that he was not provided a copy of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer's (DHO) Report containing the evidence relied on and the reasons for the sanctions and was thereby prejudiced because he could not properly exhaust the appeal process.
According to the BOP inmate locator, the petitioner was released from BOP custody on May 3, 2019. Accordingly, his request for relief can no longer be granted and his section 2241 petition and Motion to Reinstate Good Conduct Time Credit are moot.
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 (4 Cir. 2007); Alvarez v. Conley, 145 Fed. Appx. 428, 2005 WL 2500659 (4 Cir. 2005); Smithhart v. Gutierrez, 2007 WL 2897942 (N.D. W. Va. 2007). As noted above, the 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 the petitioner's section 2241 petition is now moot due to his release from BOP custody. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the presiding District Judge DENY AS MOOT the petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) and his Motion to Reinstate Good Conduct Time Credit (ECF No. 2) 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 the petitioner at his last known address and to transmit a copy to counsel of record.
July 30, 2019
/s/_________
Dwane L. Tinsley
United States Magistrate Judge