Williams v. Chester

Full title: JAMES LEE WILLIAMS, II, Petitioner, v. CLAUDE CHESTER, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Oct 14, 2008

CASE NO. 08-3177-RDR (D. Kan. Oct. 14, 2008)

Opinion

CASE NO. 08-3177-RDR.

October 14, 2008

ORDER

RICHARD ROGERS, Senior District Judge

This matter is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner proceeds pro se and submitted the full filing fee.

Petitioner commenced this action while incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. He alleges violations of due process in prison disciplinary proceedings.

A § 2241 petition for habeas corpus is used to attack the execution of a sentence. Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10^th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, such a petition is the appropriate means to challenge a prison disciplinary action that resulted in the loss of good-time credits. See McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10^th Cir. 1997).

Having considered the record, the court has concluded this matter must be dismissed as moot because it appears the petitioner has been released from custody.¹

1 On September 5, 2008, petitioner notified the clerk of the court of a change of address. A review of information maintained by the federal Bureau of Prisons confirms petitioner's release. A copy of that information is attached.

Under Article III of the United States Constitution, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to "cases" or "controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.

The writ of habeas corpus may be granted only where the applicant is "in custody". 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). A prisoner's release does not automatically render a petition moot, but the court must determine whether the petitioner is subject to collateral consequences sufficient to establish an injury in fact. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).

"A habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III. . . ." Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691 (10^th Cir. 1998). In habeas corpus, the case or controversy requirement is met when the petitioner is threatened with an actual injury caused by the respondents and where that injury is likely to be remedied by a favorable decision. Id.

Here, petitioner seeks relief from disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the forfeiture of good time credits. Restoring such credits would not benefit the petitioner, as good conduct credits cannot be applied to reduce a term of supervised release. U.S. v. Johnson, 429 U.S. 53, 60 (2000) ("The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release."))

Accordingly, the court finds a decision in petitioner's favor could offer him no relief. Because he cannot satisfy the case or controversy requirement, the present petition for habeas corpus is moot.

IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED the petition is dismissed as moot and all relief is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner's motion for an injunction (Doc. 3) is denied.

A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Inmate Locator — Locate Federal inmates from 1982 to present Register Release Date Name Number Age Race Sex Actual / Projected Location ID Search Criteria: New Search FAQs Privacy

1. JAMES LEE WILLIAMS 97021-079 35 Black M 09-22-2008 RELEASED Inmate Register Number 97021-079 Results 1 — 1 of 1