From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Evans v. Marberry

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Dec 21, 2005
Case Number: 05-CV-73254 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2005)

Opinion

Case Number: 05-CV-73254.

December 21, 2005


OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS


Petitioner Richard A. Evans, who is incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges the Bureau of Prisons' [BOP] decision to deny him early release benefits under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), based upon his conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition is moot.

At the time he filed the pending petition, Petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan.

I.

Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more of cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base within 1000 feet of a school, and possession of an unregistered firearm. On February 15, 1994, he was sentenced to a 235-month term of imprisonment.

The possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more of cocaine base conviction was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. U.S. v. Evans, No. 94-3023 (D.C. Cir. June 7, 1996).

On June 5, 1998, Petitioner completed the BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program and was deemed provisionally eligible for the early release benefit provided for under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). However, on January 6, 2004, based upon his conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm, Petitioner's status was changed and he was deemed ineligible for early release. Petitioner appealed this status change to the warden, the BOP's regional administrative office, and the BOP's central office for inmate appeals. All of his appeals were denied.

18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) provides:

The period a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in custody after successfully completing a treatment program may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such reduction may not be more than one year from the term the prisoner must otherwise serve.

Petitioner then filed the pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the BOP's decision that he is ineligible for § 3621(e)'s early release benefit.

II.

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the BOP has reconsidered its earlier decision and altered Petitioner's status so that he is now eligible for early release under § 3621(e). Respondent argues that, because Petitioner has been awarded the relief he sought from this Court, the petition is moot. Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion.

Article III, § 2, of the Constitution requires the existence of a case or controversy through all stages of federal judicial proceedings. This case or controversy requirement means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff "must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision."Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990).

The only relief Petitioner seeks in his habeas petition is an order from this Court requiring the BOP to reinstate his benefits under § 3621(e). According to the unopposed declaration of Tracy Knutson, Attorney Advisor for the BOP, the BOP has determined that Petitioner's current conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm should not preclude early release benefits. See Declaration of Tracy Knutson, Attorney Advisor for the BOP, at ¶ 4, attached as exhibit 6 to Respondent's Brief. The BOP has amended Petitioner's records to reflect that he is now eligible for early release benefits provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). Id. Because Petitioner has been afforded the relief sought in his petition, the Court concludes that there remains no actual injury which the Court could redress with a favorable decision. The matter shall, therefore, be dismissed as moot.

III.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the matter is DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Evans v. Marberry

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Dec 21, 2005
Case Number: 05-CV-73254 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2005)
Case details for

Evans v. Marberry

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD A. EVANS, Petitioner, v. H.J. MARBERRY, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Dec 21, 2005

Citations

Case Number: 05-CV-73254 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2005)