Opinion
CIV-23-461-SLP
11-08-2023
JEREMY LANGLEY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN GOLDEY, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) calculation of his sentence. Doc. 1. Petitioner alleges the BOP has failed to properly apply his earned credits to his sentence. Id. at 15-16. He requests that the Court “apply the [First Step Act] time credits earned to his sentence release date.” Id. at 16.
United States District Judge Scott L. Palk has referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 3.
Citations to a court document are to its CM/ECF designation and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless otherwise indicated.
The FSA provides eligible inmates the opportunity to earn ten or fifteen days of time credits “for every [thirty] days of successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A).
The Court ordered a response and Respondent moved to dismiss the petition under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Doc. 13. Respondent argues the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction “because the controversy is now moot.” Id. at 1. Petitioner did not reply to the motion. See LCvR7.1(g) (“Any motion that is not opposed within 21 days may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed confessed.”). The Court should grant Respondent's motion and dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
I. Background.
Petitioner has been serving an eighty-seven-month sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Doc. 13, Ex. 1, at 2. During his incarceration he has earned 365 days of FSA credits and participated in a Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP) entitling him to early release. Doc. 13, at 1-2.
On August 8, 2023, Petitioner was “pre-release[d]” from prison to a residential reentry center. Id. at 2. And, on October 17, 2023, Petitioner was fully released from incarceration. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Nov. 1, 2023).
Respondent filed the motion to dismiss before Petitioner was released but stated in the motion that the BOP was scheduled to release Petitioner on October 17, 2023. See Doc. 13, at 2. The Court has confirmed this release date through the BOP's publicly accessible website. See, e.g., Tatten v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 730 Fed.Appx. 620, 624 (10th Cir. 2018) (“A court may take judicial notice of its own files and records, as well as facts which are a matter of public record.” (citing Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010)). Petitioner has not responded to Respondent's factual assertions in the motion, so he has confessed them.
Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition on May 24, 2023, seeking his release by November 22, 2023, or requiring the BOP to grant him a “due process hearing” concerning the “arbitrar[y]” rescheduling of his release date. Doc. 1, at 16-17.
II. This Court cannot grant Petitioner any relief.
Respondent contends this action is moot because the “BOP has already afforded all of Petitioner's requested relief.” Doc. 13, at 4. The Court agrees.
“Under Article III of the Constitution [federal courts] may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). “An actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 92 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This Court has “no subject matter jurisdiction over a case if it is moot.” Corder v. Lewis Palmer Sch. Dist. No. 38, 566 F.3d 1219, 1224 (10th Cir. 2009). So “mootness is a threshold inquiry.” Green v. Haskell Cnty Bd. of Comm'rs, 568 F.3d 784, 794 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Navani v. Shahani, 496 F.3d 1121, 1127 (10th Cir. 2007)); see also Citizens for Responsible Gov't State Pol. Action Comm. v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 1182 (10th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “the court must determine whether a case is moot before proceeding to the merits”).
In deciding whether a case is moot, “[t]he crucial question is whether granting a present determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world.” Citizens for Responsible Gov't State Pol. Action Comm., 236 F.3d at 1182 (internal quotations marks and alteration omitted); see also Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 891 (10th Cir.1997) (holding a court's “inability to grant effective relief renders th[e] issue moot”). When it becomes “impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, [the court] must dismiss the case, rather than issue an advisory opinion.” Fleming v. Gutierrez, 785 F.3d 442, 445 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Petitioner is challenging the BOP's calculation of his sentence and application of earned credits to his release date. But the BOP has already released Petitioner. So were this Court to find that the BOP had previously miscalculated his sentence, the result would have no effect in the real world- rendering the petition moot.
Where a habeas petitioner has been released from custody, the petition must be dismissed as moot unless one of the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies: “(1) secondary or collateral injuries survive after resolution of the primary injury; (2) the issue is deemed a wrong capable of repetition yet evading review; (3) the defendant voluntarily ceases an allegedly illegal practice but is free to resume it at any time; or (4) it is a properly certified class action suit.” Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Since Petitioner fails to demonstrate an exception to the mootness doctrine, he fails to present a continuing case or controversy for purposes of Article III. The undersigned therefore recommends the Court grant Respondent's motion and dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
III. Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For these reasons, the undersigned recommends the Court grant Respondent's motion and dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The undersigned advises Petitioner of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before November 29, 2023, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned also advises Petitioner that the failure to file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both the factual and legal issues contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned in the captioned matter and terminates the referral.
ENTERED.