Spybuck v. Dretke

Full title: JOHN ANTHONY SPYBUCK, Petitioner, v. DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Mar 31, 2005

Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-2198-G (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-2198-G.

March 31, 2005

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

A. JOE FISH, Chief Judge, District

Before the court is the petition of John Anthony Spybuck ("Spybuck") for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons discussed below, Spybuck's petition is dismissed as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

Spybuck pleaded guilty to possession of more than four grams, but less than 200 grams, of methamphetamine in the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition") at 2; Respondent [Dretke's] Answer with Brief in Support ("Answer") at 1-2. After a twenty month term of deferred adjudication, Spybuck was convicted on May 17, 2001 and sentenced to three years confinement. Answer at 2. On March 14, 2002, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (the "Board") decided not to release Spybuck on discretionary mandatory supervision. Id. Spybuck filed the instant petition on October 9, 2002, after an unsuccessful state application for habeas corpus relief attacking the board's decision not to release him. Id.; see generally Petition. The court has recently learned that Spybuck was released on mandatory supervision on July 29, 2003.^_

_ In reviewing the petition, the court discovered that Spybuck was sentenced to three years confinement on May 17, 2001. Petition at 2. The court, on its own initiative, inquired into the custody status of Spybuck by telephoning the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The court was informed that Spybuck was released on mandatory supervision on July 29, 2003.

II. ANALYSIS

In his petition, Spybuck asserts that the Board violated his right to due process by rescinding his mandatory supervision without a hearing. Petition at 7. Spybuck further asserts that the Board violated his "`Liberty Interest' embraced in the 14th [A]mendment [to the Constitution of the United States]" by detaining him beyond his mandatory supervision release date. Id. The underlying conviction has not been challenged either in this petition, or in the state application for habeas corpus relief.

"The `case or controversy' requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits federal courts from considering questions `that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.'" CH Nationwide, Inc. v. Norwest Bank Texas NA, 208 F.3d 490, 493 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)). "Federal courts are not in the business of rendering advisory opinions." Id. Under the doctrine of mootness, the case or controversy must exist not only at the commencement of the action, but throughout the existence of the litigation. Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Company, 141 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, an action must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if, at any time in the course of litigation, the controversy ceases to exist. Id. Moreover, the district court is obligated to raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte "if the facts suggest mootness notwithstanding the silence of the parties with respect to the issue." Id.

As stated above, Spybuck's petition is based on the Board's decision not to release him on mandatory supervision. Petition at 7. Since his petition was filed, Spybuck has been released on mandatory supervision. The relief Spybuck sought in the instant petition has already been granted by the Board. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to decide, and this court lacks subject matter over Spybuck's petition.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Spybuck's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as moot.

SO ORDERED.