Opinion
2:07CV00137 JTR.
August 1, 2008
ORDER
On October 29, 2007, Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at FCI Forrest City, filed this § 2241 habeas action challenging Respondent's decision to deny him six months' placement in a Residential Reentry Center ("RRC"). On April 2, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge John F. Forster, Jr., entered a Memorandum and Order denying Petitioner's claim, concluding that Respondent calculated Petitioner's RRC placement consistent with the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c). (Docket entry #20.) Petitioner did not appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 16, 2008, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (Docket entry #23.) Petitioner argues that the Second Chance Act of 2007, signed into law on April 9, 2008, is applicable to his case and entitles him to relief. See Dudley v. Whitehead, 2008 WL 2307351, *6 n. 2 (D. S.D. 2008) ("the recently-passed Second Chance Act of 2007 alters the BOP's authority regarding to [RRC] placement, permitting a pre-release [RRC] placement of up to 12 months . . . [a]n internal BOP memorandum states that this change in law means that inmates must be reviewed for [RRC] placement 17-19 months before projected release dates.")
On July 11, 2008, an Order was entered reassigning this case to the Court, due to Judge Forster's retirement, and the Court ordered Respondent to file a Response addressing Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (Docket entries #24 and #26.)
Respondent has now submitted the affidavit of BOP Supervisory Attorney James Crook. According to Mr. Crook's Affidavit, on April 30, 2008, FCI Forrest City staff requested that Petitioner be considered for an additional 30 days of RRC placement pursuant to the Second Chance Act. (Docket entry #28, Ex. A at ¶ 3.) On May 12, 2008, Respondent made a determination that Petitioner would qualify for additional RRC placement, and changed his RRC placement date from July 31, 2008, to July 17, 2008. (Docket entry #28, Ex. A at ¶¶ 4-5.) On July 17, 2008, Petitioner was transferred to an RRC. (Docket entry #28, Ex. A at ¶ 6.)
Because Petitioner has been placed in an RRC, his requested relief is moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (docket entry #23) is DENIED, AS MOOT.