Opinion
4:19-CR-11-CDL-MSH-1
08-16-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ERIC JOSEY, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Stephen Hyles UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant Eric Josey, a federal inmate who was most recently confined at Coleman Low Federal Correctional Institution in Coleman, Florida, has filed a second motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 41) concerning his recent motions for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (ECF No. 29, 33).
In his first motion for compassionate release, Defendant requested release under § 3582(c), arguing he faced the likelihood of a severe COVID-19 infection given his health conditions. 1st Mot. for Compassionate Release 1-5, ECF No. 29. The Court denied his motion on June 23, 2020. Order 1, ECF No. 30. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 31) of this Order and a second motion for compassionate release (ECF No. 33) reiterating his arguments concerning COVID-19 and his health conditions. On October 1, 2020, the Court issued a non-binding recommendation for the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to place Defendant in a residential reentry center or on home confinement. Order 1, ECF No. 37. On the same day, the Court denied his second motion for compassionate release. Order 1, ECF No. 38.
In his pending second motion for reconsideration, Defendant states that he has not been released from BOP custody and again requests release. 2d Mot. for Reconsideration 1, ECF No. 41. The Government, however, indicates that Defendant was released from BOP custody on March 12, 2021. Resp. to 2d Mot. for Reconsideration 1-2, ECF No. 45. Accordingly, the Government maintains his motion for reconsideration is now moot. Id. The Court agrees.
“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed.” Id. at 1336. “Completion of a prison term moots a challenge to the term of confinement.” United States v. Hernandez, 845 Fed.Appx. 921, 921 (11th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Farmer, 923 F.2d 1557, 1568 (11th Cir. 1991)).
Here, Defendant seeks compassionate release from BOP custody, but he has now been released. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (searched Josey, Eric) (last accessed Aug. 9, 2021). Defendant failed to reply to the Government's response, his mail has been returned as undeliverable (ECF No. 46), and he has not updated his address. Consequently, his motion for reconsideration and attempts to seek compassionate release from BOP custody are now moot. See Hernandez, 845 Fed.Appx. at 921 (“[Defendant] has been released from the term of imprisonment from which he sought compassionate release, which means that the instant appeal no longer presents a live case and controversy over which we retain jurisdiction, and is, therefore, moot.” (citations omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's second motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 41) be DENIED AS MOOT. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy hereof. The district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED, .