Opinion
04 Civ. 5762 (LTS)(GWG).
September 21, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
George L. Caisse has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition challenges the application of a recent federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") policy that delays a prisoner's eligibility for transfer from prison to a community confinement center ("CCC") — commonly known as a "halfway house" — at the end of his sentence. See Affidavit of George L. Caisse, annexed to Petition, ¶ 9. In brief, Caisse contends that the applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), permits BOP to transfer him for any length of time up to six months prior to the conclusion of his term of imprisonment. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9-10. Under the BOP's policy, Caisse is only eligible for such transfer on the date at which the last 10 percent of his sentence begins. Id. ¶ 7.
Some courts have upheld the BOP policy. See, e.g., Galizia v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2004 WL 1900350 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2004); Cohn v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 302 F. Supp. 2d 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Others have concluded that the policy violates section 3624(c) and thus have ordered the prisoner to be considered for transfer at the point six months prior to the expiration of his sentence. See, e.g., Schoenfeld v. Menifee, 2004 WL 1516797 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2004); Grimaldi v. Menifee, 2004 WL 912099, (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2004).
Caisse was sentenced to a 37-month term of imprisonment. Petition, ¶ 3. His projected release date (assuming he receives all his Good Conduct Time) is December 25, 2004. Affidavit of George L. Caisse, annexed to Petition, ¶ 7. Thus, under Caisse's view, he was eligible for transfer to a CCC on June 25, 2004. The petition in this matter was not filed until July 23, 2004, however. The BOP did not submit its response until September 9, 2004. In that response, the BOP conceded that Caisse became eligible for transfer to a CCC under its new policy as of September 19, 2004. See Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed September 9, 2004, at 1, 27; Return, filed September 9, 2004, ¶ 10. Accordingly, Caisse would no longer benefit from a ruling that the BOP policy is unlawful and that he must be considered now for transfer to a CCC.
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, a federal court is empowered to decide only "cases and controversies," which means that federal courts may not adjudicate matters that no longer present an actual dispute between the parties. See, e.g., Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). Because the ruling sought by Caisse — that the BOP policy is unlawful — would have no effect on Caisse's transfer to a CCC, this case must be dismissed as moot. See, e.g., Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148 (1975) (case challenging prison policy dismissed as moot where prisoner "no longer has any present interest affected by that policy"). Nor does this case fit within the exception to the mootness doctrine permitting review of matters "capable of repetition yet evading review," e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1998), since, as noted above, the very issue raised in this petition has in fact been reviewed on numerous occasions.
Conclusion
The petition should be dismissed as moot.
PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to serve and file any objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (e). Such objections (and any responses to objections) shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with copies sent to the Hon. Laura T. Swain, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, and to the undersigned at the same address. Any request for an extension of time to file objections must be directed to Judge Swain. If a party fails to file timely objections, that party will not be permitted to raise any objections to this Report and Recommendation on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).