Opinion
3:22-cv-176-KRG-KAP
07-16-2024
BEN McCORMACK, Petitioner v. MICHAEL UNDERWOOD, WARDEN, F.C.I. LORETTO, Respondent
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION
KEITH A. PESTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner McCormack filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241, the respondent filed a Response, and I made a recommendation on May 19, 2023 that is still pending. Based on the suggestion of mootness filed at ECF no. 14, the petition should be dismissed.
Report
For a federal court to have jurisdiction over a case, an actual controversy must be extant not only at the outset of litigation, but throughout its course. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). See also Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 711 (2011) (“When subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur we have no live controversy to review.” (cleaned up, citations omitted)). Because the injury that the petition sought to remedy is moot and cannot be remedied this matter should be dismissed.
Petitioner has not updated his address so this will probably come back as undeliverable as to petitioner but, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties are given notice that they can within fourteen days file written objections to my recommendation. Failure to file timely and specific objections will limit further review of this matter. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for *" “ W,