Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:03-CV-1340-Y
February 13, 2004
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a federal prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
B. PARTIES
Petitioner Charles C. Nowden, Reg. No. 29172-077, is a former federal prisoner who was incarcerated in the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas, at the time of the filing of this petition.
The Respondent is L.E. Fleming, Warden of the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas.
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By way of the instant petition, filed on November 10, 2003, Nowden challenges a disciplinary proceeding conducted at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth and the resultant loss of 27 days good conduct time. (Pet. at ii-iii; Pet'r Mem. in Support Exhibits.) Nowden challenged his disciplinary conviction via his administrative remedies to no avail. (Pet'r Exhibits.) In his petition, he seeks restoration of his good conduct time and release from incarceration. On December 22, 2003, Nowden notified the court of his change of address to 1727 Oak Village Blvd #319, Arlington, Texas.
The various attachments to Nowden's memorandum in support are not numbered or otherwise delineated.
Fleming has filed a response, supported by the affidavit of Alberto Munguia, Attorney Advisor for the Unites States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, at Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, in which Fleming asserts that Nowden was released from federal custody on December 12, 2003, pursuant to the expiration of his sentence with good time credits applied. (Resp't Resp. at 2 Appendix.) Fleming, thus, moves for dismissal of the petition as moot.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator also reflects that Nowden was released from federal custody on that date. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons/Inmate Locator, available at http://www.bop.gov.
D. ISSUES
Nowden raises the following two grounds for relief:
(1) Whether petitioner should be allowed to have his claim alleging the violation of his constitutional right to due process reviewed prematurely without the exhaustion of his BP-11 under the administrative remedy process; and
(2) Whether the evidence is this case met the "some evidence standard" enunciated in Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). (Pet. at iv.)
E. DISCUSSION
1. MOOTNESS
Fleming contends that since Nowden is no longer in federal custody, having completed the incarcerative portion of his sentence, the instant petition for habeas relief should be dismissed as moot. (Resp't Response at 2.) Nowden argues that his petition should not be dismissed as moot because such a dismissal would foreclose him from pursuing a § 1983 civil action for monetary damages under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Although the holding in Heck may be applicable in the context of a prison disciplinary proceeding resulting in the deprivation of good conduct time, see Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-48 (1997), the Supreme Court, in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998), limited the scope of the holding in Heck to detained prisoners. Id. at 17. See also id. at 18-21 (Souter, J., concurring); White v. Phillips, 34 F. Supp.2d 1038, 1038-42 (W.D. La. 1998); Loth v. Guzik, No. 4:00-CV-0377-G, 2001 WL 649650 at *3 n. 3 (N.D. Tex. May 16, 2001), adopted, 2001 WL 649656 (N.D. Tex. June 8, 2001) (not designated for publication). Heck is therefore inapplicable.
In Heck, the majority of the Supreme Court held that in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. at 486-87. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id.
Because Nowden has been released from federal custody, this court can no longer provide him with the relief he seeks. See Bailey v. Southerland, 82 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1987). He is no longer confined, and restoration of his loss good conduct time is not possible. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 C.F.R. § 2.35(b). Nor has Nowden demonstrated that he is suffering any current collateral consequences from the subject disciplinary proceeding and loss of good conduct time or that he will suffer any collateral consequences in the future. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7-8. Dismissal of this petition is therefore appropriate as moot based upon the expiration of Nowden's incarcerative sentence and his release from federal custody. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632 (1982).
Section 2.35(b) provides in relevant part:
Once an offender is conditionally released from imprisonment, either by parole or mandatory supervision, the good time earned during that period of imprisonment is of no further effect either to shorten the period of supervision or to shorten the period of imprisonment which the offender may be required to serve for violation of parole or mandatory supervision.
II. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot.
III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation until March 5, 2004. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc op. on reh'g); Carter v. Collins, 918 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).
IV. ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that each party is granted until March 5, 2004, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, a response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.