Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-cv-0919
11-02-2022
ANDRE SAUNDERS, Petitioner, v. RRM DIRECTOR, PITTSBURGH, Respondent.
Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by former federal prisoner Andre Saunders (Petitioner) be dismissed as moot and that this case be closed.
II. REPORT
A. Relevant Background
On May 23, 2016, Petitioner was sentenced in this Court to a 120-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a 5 year term of supervised release on his conviction for Conspiracy to Possess With Intent To Distribute and Distribute one kilogram or more of heroin and five kilograms or more of cocaine. See United States v. Saunders, Criminal Docket No. 2:15-cr-0203 (W.D.Pa). On November 16, 2021, pursuant to the CARES Act, Petitioner was designated to home confinement in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The BOP records indicate that Petitioner was awarded one year of credit under § 3621 E for completion of a Residential Drug Abuse Program and 365 days of First Step Act (“FSA”) credit.
On June 22, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No 1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he claims that the BOP has not properly credited him with Earned Time Credit under the statute for Evidence Based Recidivism Reduction (“EBRR”) programs for productive activities and programming. He alleges that he is eligible and should receive 540 days of FSA credit. At the time the petition was filed, Petitioner's projected release date was September 17, 2022.
Respondent filed a response to the petition on August 31, 2022. (ECF No. 9). On September 23, 2022, Respondent filed a Notice of Suggestion of Mootness (ECF No. 13) asserting that Petitioner was released from federal custody on September 16, 2022, and as such, there is no remedy that the Court can provide.
By Order entered on October 11, 2022, Petitioner was ordered to respond to the Notice of Suggestion of Mootness by October 28, 2022. (ECF No. 14). The Order explained that if Petitioner failed to respond, it would be recommended that the matter be dismissed as moot as he had received the relief he sought in his petition. The time for filing a response has now passed and there has been no activity on the docket since the Order of October 11, 2022 was entered.
The BOP's inmate locator, which is available online at www.bop.gov and of which this Court may take judicial notice, confirms that Petitioner was released from federal custody on September 16, 2022.
B. Discussion
It is a well-established principle that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to decide an issue unless it presents a live case or controversy as required by Article III, § 2, of the Constitution. Doe v. Deli, 257 F.3d 309, 313 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)). To avoid mootness, a controversy must exist at all stages of review. See id. (citing New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. Jersey Central Power & Light, 772 F.2d 25, 31 (3d Cir. 1985)). “Mootness has two aspects: (1) the issues presented are no longer ‘live' or (2) the parties lack a cognizable interest in the outcome.” id. (quoting New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 772 F.2d at 31). Thus, “[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a [petitioner's] personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant effective relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
In the instant case, since Petitioner completed his term of imprisonment on September 16, 2022, the relief Petitioner seeks is no longer needed. As issues raised in the Petition are no longer “live,” the issues raised in the instant petition are moot. Spencer v. Kemma, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998) ("[M]ootness, however it may have come about, simply deprives us of our power to act; there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.").
When the injury that a complaining party seeks to remedy through litigation is no longer existent, there still may be a case or controversy before the court if there is: (1) a collateral injury; (2) that is "likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp, 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)); Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147-51 (3d Cir. 2009). Courts often will presume that a wrongful conviction has collateral consequences that likely can be remedied by a favorable decision from a habeas court. However, in cases such as the instant case, where a petitioner is challenging the BOP's execution of his sentence and not the lawfulness of his underlying conviction, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that he has sustained a collateral injury that can be effectively remedied by the court in order to avoid having his case dismissed on mootness grounds. Burkey, 556 F.3d at 148 ("Where . . . the appellant is attacking a sentence that has already been served, collateral consequences will not be presumed, but must be proven.").
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot and that this case be closed.Any party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Petitioner because he is a non-electronically registered party, must file objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by November 21, 2022, and Respondent, because he is an electronically registered party must file objections, if any, by November 16, 2022. The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). See also 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 plain error).
28 U.S.C. § 2253 sets forth the standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court's disposition of a habeas petition. Federal prisoner appeals from the dismissal of a § 2241 habeas corpus proceeding are not governed by he certificate of appealability requirement. United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 264-65 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012).