From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Law v. Hecknard

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Aug 29, 2024
Civil Action 5:22-00041 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 29, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 5:22-00041

08-29-2024

JAMEL LAW, Petitioner, v. HECKNARD, Respondent.


PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Omar J. Aboulhosn United States Magistrate Judge

On January 24, 2022, Petitioner, acting pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Document No. 1.) Petitioner argues that the BOP is improperly denying him time credit pursuant to the First Step Act. (Id.) As relief, Petitioner requests that he be awarded his First Step Act time credits and released from custody. (Id.) On January 28, 2022, Petitioner paid his $5.00 filing fee. (Document No. 4.) By Order entered on January 28, 2022, the Court ordered that Respondent file an Answer to the allegations contained in the Petitioner's Petition and show cause, if any, why the Writ of Habeas Corpus sought by the Petitioner in this case should not be granted. (Document No. 5.) On February 15, 2022, Respondent filed a Response requesting that Petitioner's Petition be denied. (Document No. 7.) Specifically, Respondent argues that Petitioner's Petition should be denied based on the following: (1) “Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies” (Id., pp. 2 - 3); and (2) “Petitioner is not eligible to earn FTC” (Id., pp. 3 - 5). By Order and Notice entered on February 15, 2022, the undersigned notified Petitioner of his right to file a Reply. (Document No. 8.) On March 10, 2022, Petitioner filed his Reply. (Document No. 12.)

Because Petitioner is acting pro se, the documents which he has filed in this case are held to a less stringent standard than if they were prepared by a lawyer, and therefore they are construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).

ANALYSIS

The undersigned finds that Petitioner's Section 2241 Petition must be dismissed as moot. Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides that federal Courts may adjudicate only live cases or controversies. See Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 1253, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990); Nakell v. Attorney General of North Carolina, 15 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 866, 115 S.Ct. 184, 130 L.Ed.2d 118 (1994). This means that the “litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. In the context of a habeas corpus proceeding, the writ “does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 1129, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). In this case, by virtue of Petitioner's release from custody, the Respondent can no longer provide the requested relief. Consequently, the Court can no longer consider Petitioner's Petition under Section 2241.

An incarcerated convict's (or a parolee's) challenge to the validity of his conviction always satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement because the incarceration (or the restriction imposed by the terms of the parole) constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction. Once the convict's sentence has expired, however, some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole - - some “collateral consequence” of the conviction must exist if the suit is to be maintained.
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). Accordingly, Petitioner's claims are rendered moot by virtue of his release from custody and the absence of collateral consequences, and therefore, his Section 2241 Petition must be dismissed. See e.g., Alston v. Adams, 178 Fed.Appx. 295, 2006 WL 1194751 (C.A.4 (Va.)); Alvarez v. Conley, 145 Fed.Appx. 428, 2005 WL 2500659 (C.A.4 (W.Va.); Smithhart v. Gutierrez, 2007 WL 2897942 (N.D.W.Va.).

The Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Locator indicates that Petitioner was released from custody on May 31, 2024.

PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, it is therefore respectfully PROPOSED that the District Court confirm and accept the foregoing factual findings and legal conclusions and RECOMMENDED that the District Court DISMISS Petitioner's Section 2241 Petition (Document No. 1), and REMOVE this matter from the Court's docket.

The Petitioner is hereby notified that this “Proposed Findings and Recommendation” is hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable United States District Judge Frank W. Volk. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Rule 6(d) and 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days (filing of objections) and three (3) days (if received by mail) from the date of filing of this Proposed Findings and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted for good cause.

Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208, 104 S.Ct. 2395, 81 L.Ed.2d 352 (1984). Copies of such objections shall be served on opposing parties, District Judge Volk, and this Magistrate Judge.

The Clerk is requested to send a copy of this Proposed Findings and Recommendation to Petitioner, who is acting pro se, and counsel of record.


Summaries of

Law v. Hecknard

United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia
Aug 29, 2024
Civil Action 5:22-00041 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 29, 2024)
Case details for

Law v. Hecknard

Case Details

Full title:JAMEL LAW, Petitioner, v. HECKNARD, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia

Date published: Aug 29, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 5:22-00041 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 29, 2024)