United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Bluefield
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
L. TINSLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is the petitioner's Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State or Federal Custody (ECF No. 2). This matter is assigned
to the Honorable David A. Faber, Senior United States
District Judge, and, by Standing Order, it is referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of
proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The petitioner
paid the applicable $5.00 filing fee.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
time he filed his petition, the petitioner was incarcerated
at the Federal Correctional Institution, McDowell, in Welch,
West Virginia, serving a 90-month term of imprisonment
imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, following his conviction on one count
of conspiracy to distribute heroin. (ECF No. 1 at 1; see
also No. 3:09-cr-02111-W-1 (S.D. Cal., Apr. 20, 2010).
The petitioner's section 2241 petition seeks the
restoration of 41 days of disallowed good conduct time
resulting from a prison disciplinary finding at BSCC Big
Spring, in Texas, on the basis that a “private official
was unauthorized to sanction petitioner.” (Id.
at 6-7). However, the petitioner was subsequently released
from BOP custody. Accordingly, his section 2241 petition is
United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal
courts to actual cases or controversies that are present at
all stages of review. U.S. Const., art. III, § 2;
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988); Lewis v.
Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990).
When a case or controversy no longer exists, the claim is
said to be “moot.” In the context of habeas
corpus, a case is rendered moot when the inmate has been
released from the custody being challenged, without
collateral consequences, and the court can no longer remedy
the inmate's grievance. See, e.g.,
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Alston
v. Adams, 178 Fed.Appx. 295, 2006 WL 1194751
(4th Cir. 2007); Alvarez v. Conley, 145
Fed.Appx. 428, 2005 WL 2500659 (4th Cir. 2005);
Smithhart v. Gutierrez, 2007 WL 2897942 (N.D. W.Va.
2007). As noted above, the petitioner has been released from
BOP custody; thus, this federal court is no longer able to
grant his requested relief.
the undersigned proposes that the presiding District Judge
FIND that the petitioner's section 2241
petition is now moot in light of his release from BOP
custody. Accordingly, it is respectfully
RECOMMENDED that the presiding District
Judge DENY AS MOOT the petitioner's
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (ECF No. 1) and DISMISS this civil
action from the docket of the court.
petitioner is notified that this Proposed Findings and
Recommendation is hereby FILED, and a copy
will be submitted to the Honorable David A. Faber, Senior
United States District Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of
Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), Rules
6(d) and 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules
1(b) and 8(b) of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the
United States District Courts Under Section 2254 of Title 28,
United States Code, the petitioner shall have fourteen days
(filing of objections) and then three days (service/mailing)
from the date of filing this Proposed Findings and
Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this
Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions
of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation to which
objection is made, and the basis of such objection. Extension
of this time period may be granted by the presiding District
Judge for good cause shown.
to file written objections as set forth above shall
constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court
and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of
Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir.
1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.
1984). Copies of such objections shall be served on Judge
Clerk is directed to file this Proposed Findings and
Recommendation and to mail a copy of the same to the
petitioner at his last known address.
 The petitioner's petition was
docketed under the name “Fajardo Meza Joel.”
However, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
inmate locator on its website, www.bop.gov, using
the BOP register number provided in the instant section 2241
petition, this inmate's name is “Joel
Fajardo-Meza.” Accordingly, the undersigned will use
that name herein and the Clerk is directed to modify the
docket sheet to reflect the petitioner's correct name.
The BOP inmate locator ...