Opinion
C/A 4:22-3070-JFA-TER
01-09-2023
BRANDON LYNN STEELE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI EDGEFIELD, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge
The pro se petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 12, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. At the time of the filing of the petition, Petitioner was housed at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Edgefield, South Carolina. On December 1, 2022, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16). The undersigned issued an order filed December 5, 2022, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975), advising the Petitioner of the motion and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (ECF No. 17). The Roseboro Order was returned to the Clerk of Court's office via United States Postal Service on December 19, 2022, marked “Return to Sender” and “Inmate Not At This Facility.” (ECF No. 20). Petitioner failed to file a response.
This habeas corpus case was automatically referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02, DSC. Because this is a dispositive motion, this report and recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.
The court's order of October 13, 2022, was returned to the Clerk of Court's office via United States Postal Service on November 18, 2022, marked “Return to Sender-Inmate Not At This Facility-unable to forward.” (ECF Nos. 11 and 15). This court entered an order on September 22, 2022, advising the Petitioner to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times or else his complaint was subject to dismissal. (ECF No. 5).
RULE 41(B) DISMISSAL
A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with orders of the court. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990), and Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982). In considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court is required to consider four factors:
(1) the degree of plaintiff's responsibility in failing to respond;
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant;
(3) the history of the plaintiff in proceeding in a dilatory manner; and, (4) the existence of less drastic sanctions other than dismissal. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).
In the present case, the Petitioner is proceeding pro se so he is entirely responsible for his actions. It is solely through Petitioner's neglect, and not that of an attorney, that no responses have been filed. Petitioner has not responded to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or the court's order requiring him to respond and has not complied with the court's order of September 22, 2022, to keep the court informed of his current address. The court's orders of October 13, 2022, and December 5, 2022, were returned to sender. No other reasonable sanctions are available. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b).
In the alternative, the Motion to Dismiss will be addressed below.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND/ ANALYSIS
At the time of the filing of this petition, Petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution Edgefield, South Carolina (FCI Edgefield). Petitioner filed this petition seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Specifically, he filed this action seeking prior custody credit from May 26, 2021, through May 6, 2022, for time served in county jail on state charges. Petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on May 10, 2022, to 19 months incarceration for violating the terms of his supervised release in Case Number 1:12-cr-001430TRM-SKL-2.
In the Motion to Dismiss, Respondent asserts that this petition must be dismissed as it is moot because Petitioner was released from custody on October 17, 2022. Respondent attached the declaration of Heather Gandy (Gandy), Management Analyst at the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (“DSCC”)in Grand Prairie, Texas. (ECF No. 16-1). Her duties include providing litigation assistance to the United States Attorney's Office in cases where federal inmates challenge their sentence computations, which includes auditing and reviewing such computations. (Id.). Gandy declares that she has access to the BOP's SENTRY computer database, which tracks the status and activities of inmates while in federal custody. (Id.). Petitioner is a former federal inmate previously designated by the BOP to serve his sentence at the FCI, Edgefield. (Id.). During the pendency of this action, Petitioner was pursuing administrative remedies and sent a letter to the DSCC questioning the time credit. (Id.). After conducting research, the DSCC updated Petitioner's sentence computation and applied prior custody credit (jail credit) for the time period from May 26, 2021, through May 9, 2022, which resulted in Petitioner's immediate release from custody on October 17, 2022, with an actual calculated release date of October 1, 2022. (Id.).
In light of the fact that Petitioner was released from the FCI on October 17, 2022,and it appearing there is no further relief that this court can provide, it is recommended that this action be dismissed as moot and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) be granted. See e.g., Alston v. Adams, 178 Fed.Appx. 295, 2006 WL 1194751 (4th Cir. 2006). Where a petitioner attacks his sentence only and not the validity of his conviction, expiration of the sentence moots the case. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982).
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, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). 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.”).
Respondent did not indicate that there were any collateral consequences at issue and Petitioner did not file a response.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In the alternative, it is recommended that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) be granted and the petition dismissed as moot.
Respectfully Submitted, Petitioner's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.