Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-075-O
09-08-2014
ROBERT LOUIS SALTER JR., Petitioner, v. RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden, FCI-Fort Worth, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner, Robert Louis Salter Jr., a federal prisoner who was confined in FCI-Fort Worth at the time this petition was filed, against Rodney W. Chandler, warden of FCI-Fort Worth, Respondent. The prior referral to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner was serving a total term of 151 months' confinement on his convictions for possession of a machine gun and failure to appear in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division. See CM/ECF, Criminal Docket for Case ##2:02-CR-20047-RTD-1 & 2:04-CR-20008-RTD-1. In this petition, Petitioner seeks immediate transfer to a residential reentry center (RRC) or to home confinement "to remove him from overcrowded and inhumane conditions" at the prison. Pet. 9, ECF No. 1. He also seeks class certification of inmates confined in FCI-Fort Worth and other relief involving "areas of housing and medical care" and appointment of counsel. Mot., ECF No. 2. Bureau records indicate that Petitioner is no longer in BOP custody. See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons/Inmate Locator, available at http://www.bop.gov. As of this date, Petitioner has not notified the court of his current address or whereabouts.
II. DISCUSSION
Because Petitioner has been released from federal custody, this court can no longer provide him with the relief he seeks-i.e., release to a RRC or to home confinement. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1987). Petitioner is no longer confined nor has he demonstrated that he is suffering any current collateral consequences or that he will suffer any collateral consequences in the future. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998). Dismissal of this petition is therefore appropriate as moot based upon Petitioner's release. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632 (1982); McRae v. Hogan, 576 F.2d 615, 616-17 (5th Cir. 1978).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED as moot. All pending motions for relief are DENIED. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), for the reasons discussed herein, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 8th day of September, 2014.
/s/________
REED O'CONNOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE