Opinion
EP-24-CV-90-KC
07-26-2024
ALFREDO ALARCON, Petitioner, v. SANDRA HIJAR, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KATHLEEN CARDONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Alfredo Alarcon, federal prisoner number 41260-180, challenges the execution of his sentence through a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet'r's Pet., ECF No. 5. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss Alarcon's petition.
Alarcon pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. United States v. Alarcon, EP-19-CR-4033-DB (W.D. Tex.), J. Crim. Case, ECF No. 37 at 1. He was sentenced to 37 months' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release. Id. at 2, 3. After completing his term of imprisonment and while on supervised release, Alarcon's urine specimen tested positive for cocaine. Id., Request for Modifying Conditions of Release, ECF No. 40. As a result, he was ordered by the Court to reside for a period of up to 180 days at Dismas Charities, Inc., in El Paso, Texas. Id. at 2. Alarcon turned himself in at Dismas on June 30, 2023, but he failed to comply with the rules and his supervised release was revoked by the Court on September 28, 2023. Id., Order, ECF No. 57. He was then committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for a period of five months plus 151 days, with no supervised release to follow. Id.
At the time Alarcon filed his petition, he was incarcerated at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Anthony, Texas, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. See BOP, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (search for Reg. No. 41260-180) (last visited July 25, 2024). He was released from prison by the BOP on June 7, 2024. Id.
Alarcon claims in his petition filed on April 12, 2024, that the BOP erred when it denied him credit toward his sentence for his time spent as a condition of his supervised release at Dismas between June 30, 2023, and September 28, 2023. Id. at 10. He maintains that, with the addition of the credit for his time at Dismas, his release date should have been March 11, 2024. Id. He asks the Court to order his immediate release from prison. Id. He adds “to compel [him] to exhaust administrative remedies at this juncture would be futile.” Id. at 6.
A prisoner may attack “the manner in which his sentence is carried out or the prison authorities' determination of its duration” through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). To prevail, a prisoner must show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
A district court is constrained by Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution to adjudicating “actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). Furthermore, “[i]n order to maintain jurisdiction, [it] must have before it an actual case or controversy at all stages of the judicial proceedings.” United States v. Vega, 960 F.3d 669, 672 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). “A case becomes moot ... when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A court is obliged to raise the subject of mootness sua sponte in the absence of it being raised by a party. Donovan v. Air Transport District Lodge No. 146, 754 F.2d 621, 624 (5th Cir. 1985).
It is undisputed that Alarcon satisfied the jurisdictional “in custody” requirement for purposes of pursuing relief under § 2241 at the time he filed his petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). But in order to maintain the Court's jurisdiction, Alarcon must separately satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. Alarcon had already received the sole relief sought in his petition: release from prison. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (dismissing a § 2241 petition as moot following release where “the thrust of [the] petition is to be released from his confinement”). So, because Alarcon is no longer in custody, there is no longer a live case or controversy for which any relief could be granted.
Consequently, the Court concludes that it should dismiss Alarcon's § 2241 petition as moot. The Court accordingly enters the following orders:
IT IS ORDERED that Alfredo Alarcon's pro se “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in this cause, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.