Opinion
No. 3:04-CV-298-D.
March 9, 2005
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order of Reference filed November 15, 2004, the District Court construed respondent's "Notice to Court of Petitioner's Release from Incarceration" as a motion, and referred it to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for recommendation.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2004, the Court received an application for habeas corpus filed by petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, wherein he sought to be confined in a Community Corrections Center rather than a federal correctional institution. On November 10, 2004, respondents filed the instant notice which informs the Court that petitioner has been released from custody and suggests that this case is moot. The Court must now determine whether it still has jurisdiction over this action.
II. JURISDICTION
"Article III of the Constitution limits federal `Judicial Power,' that is, federal-court jurisdiction, to `Cases' and `Controversies.'" United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot "when the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). "If a dispute has been resolved or if it has evanesced because of changed circumstances, including the passage of time, it is considered moot." American Med. Ass'n v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 1988). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) requires that federal courts dismiss an action "[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter."
In this case, respondents suggest that this action is moot because petitioner has been released from incarceration. Furthermore, in his memorandum in support of his § 2241 petition, petitioner argued that this action would become moot by the end of June 2004. ( See Mem. Supp. Pet. at 7-9.) There thus appears to be no disagreement between the parties that this case is moot. In addition, through his § 2241 petition, petitioner wanted the Court to order that he be confined in a Community Corrections Center rather than a federal correctional institution. Petitioner's release indeed moots that request for relief. Because there is no longer any live issue to resolve through the instant action, the Court should dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for lack of jurisdiction.