Opinion
No. 3:02-CV-1426-M
November 14, 2002
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the District Court. The findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner brings this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On November 2, 1999, Petitioner was convicted of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to four years imprisonment. Petitioner does not challenge his conviction, but instead challenges Respondent's refusal to release him to mandatory supervised release.
Petitioner argues that his good time credit, plus his time served, make him eligible for release on mandatory supervision. Petitioner challenges Respondent's determination that Petitioner's good time credit is not an accurate reflection of his potential for rehabilitation and Respondent's subsequent refusal to release him onto mandatory supervision. Petitioner also argues that his constitutional rights were violated when he was required to perform prison work without pay.
DISCUSSION
1. Claim challenging conditions of confinement
Petitioner claims he was required to perform prison work without pay and that this requirement violated his constitutional rights. Petitioner's claim involves a challenge to the conditions of his confinement rather than the fact or duration of his confinement. A writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate federal remedy for a state prisoner challenging the fact of confinement. Cook v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dept., 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994). Claims involving the conditions of confinement and prison procedures, however, are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1997). Petitioner's claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was required to work without pay should therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner's allegations also do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As the Fifth Circuit has stated: "Compelling an inmate to work without pay is not unconstitutional." See Murray v. Miss. dept. of Corrections, 911 F.2d 1167, 1167 (1990).
2. Denial of mandatory supervised release
The petition challenges Respondent's refusal to release Petitioner onto mandatory supervision. Respondent, however, has notified the Court that Petitioner was released to mandatory supervision on May 22, 2002. In Petitioner's reply to Respondent's motion to dismiss, Petitioner does not dispute that he was released to mandatory supervision. Petitioner instead states that Respondent has failed to explain why he was not released to mandatory supervision earlier.
Article III of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies." U.S. Const. Art. III; United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot "when the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). When a petitioner does not attack the validity of his conviction, but merely contests the imposition and duration of his confinement, the case becomes moot when he is no longer confined. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982).
In this case, Petitioner does not attack the validity of any conviction. Instead, he first challenged the fact that he had not been released on mandatory supervision. He now argues that although he has been released on mandatory supervision, he should have been released earlier. Petitioner, however, has received all the relief he might be entitled to if he prevailed on his habeas corpus claims. Accordingly, these claims should be dismissed as moot.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's claims that he was required to perform prison work without pay should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner's claims that he was unconstitutionally denied release onto mandatory supervision should be dismissed as moot.