Opinion
Civil Action 6:22-cv-3475-SAL-KFM
04-20-2023
Samuel D. Spires, III, Plaintiff, v. Warden Janson, Respondent.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEVIN F. McDONALD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The petitioner, a federal prisoner who is proceeding pro se, brought this action challenging an administrative disciplinary action he received at Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Edgefield. He seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review post-trial petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
BACKGROUND
On December 19, 2022, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that this case is moot as the disciplinary action has been expunged and the petitioner's good conduct time has been restored (doc. 16). On January 6, 2023, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the petitioner was advised of the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to the respondent's motion (doc. 17). His response to the motion to dismiss was due by February 6, 2023. On February 9, 2023, the petitioner sent a letter to the court in which he stated that he had received the Roseboro order from the court, but he had “not yet received a true copy of the actual motion to dismiss” (doc. 19 at 1).
As the petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court filed a second order (doc. 20) on February 10, 2023, directing the Clerk of Court to immediately mail to the petitioner a copy of the respondent's motion to dismiss and all attachments (doc. 16) along with another copy of the Roseboro order (doc. 17). The Clerk of Court was further directed to recalculate the due date of the petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss from the date of the second order. Accordingly, the petitioner was given through March 13, 2023, to file his response to the motion to dismiss.
On March 16, 2023, the petitioner filed his response to the motion to dismiss, stating: “I received a Roseboro Order stating my claim is moot. If all my good days are restored and my disciplinary action is expunged, I'm willing to dismiss my claim. I want to thank the courts for helping me” (doc. 22).
Of course, the Roseboro order did not state the petitioner's claim is moot. Rather, as set forth above, the respondent argued in its motion to dismiss that the petitioner's claim is moot, and the Roseboro order explained the motion to dismiss procedure (see docs. 16, 17).
FACTS PRESENTED
In his petition, the petitioner identifies the disciplinary action at issue here as incident report number 3570287, which charged him with a violation of Code 113, Possessing Drugs/Alcohol (doc. 1-2 at 5). The petitioner asserts the action should be expunged because his due process rights were violated in the following ways: (1) he was subject to selective prosecution; (2) he did not receive a copy of the Discipline Hearing Officer's (“DHO”) report within 20 days; (3) the Central Office did not respond to his administrative remedy in a timely manner, which delayed his appeal process and violated policy; and (4) there was insufficient evidence before the DHO because the Alco-Sensor reading did not meet policy requirements for a positive test (id. at 6-7). The petitioner seeks to have the disciplinary action expunged and his good conduct time restored (id.).
The respondent has submitted the declaration of J. Carter, legal assistant for the South Carolina Consolidated Legal Center located at FCI Edgefield (doc. 16-1, Carter decl.). Carter attests that the petitioner's disciplinary action for incident report number 3570287 has been expunged, and his good conduct time has been restored (id. ¶¶ 4-6 & attach. A, B).
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) (citation omitted). Therefore, when changes occur during the course of litigation that eliminate the petitioner's need for the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot. See Friedman's Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[O]ne such circumstance mooting a claim arises when the claimant receives the relief he or she sought to obtain through the claim.” (citation omitted)). As the petitioner has already received the relief he requests, this case should be dismissed as moot. See, e.g., Shellman v. Vereen, C. A. No. 4:19-226-JFA-TER, 2019 WL 3521737, at *1-2 (habeas petition challenging disciplinary action became moot upon expungement of disciplinary action and restoration of good conduct time credits).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the respondent's motion to dismiss (doc. 16) should be granted and the petition dismissed as moot without opposition from the petitioner.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the following page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
250 East North Street, Suite 2300
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).