Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-663
10-28-2019
SHAWN BROWN, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL; and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, Respondents.
District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan/Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State Custody, ECF Nos. 9 and 12, (the "Petition") be dismissed as moot because Petitioner has been released from custody during the pendency of the Petition and he only sought to challenge the calculation of his sentence. II, REPORT
A. Factual and Procedural History
Shawn Brown ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, had originally initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "Middle District Court"), where he was in custody at the time. Petitioner captioned his initial filing as a "Motion for Mandamus Relief." ECF No. 9. The Middle District Court treated the Motion for Mandamus Relief as a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and because Petitioner's conviction arose out of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, transferred the case here, even though Petitioner is not challenging his conviction or his sentence as imposed but rather he challenges the way his sentence is being calculated and credited.
After the case was transferred here in June 2019, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a Notice of Election as to whether he wanted to proceed with this action being treated as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or to withdraw it. ECF No. 10. Petitioner chose to have this case treated as a Section 2254 Habeas Petition. ECF No. 12. Accordingly, the Court has treated these proceedings as having been filed pursuant to Section 2254.
On September 25, 2019, Respondents filed a Status Report, wherein they stated that Petitioner had reached his maximum sentence date on September 23, 2019, and, was released on that date. ECF No. 41. Respondents also indicated that, as a consequence of the release, this Petition has become moot. Id. ¶ 11. Petitioner did file a Notice of Change of Address with the Court, confirming that he is no longer incarcerated. ECF No. 43.
In light of the foregoing, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this case should not be dismissed as moot given Petitioner's release from custody. ECF No. 45. Petitioner was ordered to file a response to the Order to Show Cause no later than October 15, 2019. As of this date, Petitioner has not filed a response.
B. Discussion
The applicable rule is that "[a] case is moot when issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township, 309 F.3d 120, 131 (3d Cir. 2002). In other words, "[w]hen it is no longer possible for this court to grant the relief requested, a case is moot and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear it." Med. v. McCulloch, 544 F. App'x 699, 699 (9th Cir. 2013).
Petitioner sought to utilize this Section 2254 Petition to challenge the calculation of his sentence and not the validity of his conviction.
Petitioner was ordered to show cause why, given the facts of this case, the Petition was not rendered moot by the fact that his sentence reached its maximum date, irrespective of how calculated, and he was released. Furthermore, Petitioner did not respond to the Order to Show Cause. Given the foregoing, we find that the Petition has been rendered moot by Petitioner's release from custody and, despite being given an opportunity to show why the case is not moot, Petitioner has not taken advantage of that opportunity and has failed to carry his burden to show that the case is not now moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that the instant Petition be dismissed as moot.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
Respectfully submitted, Date: October 28, 2019
/s/_________
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: The Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan
United States District Judge
SHAWN BROWN
Light of Life Mission
10 East North Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
All counsel of record via CM/ECF