United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
P. MAZZONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1, 2019, Richard Villar, pro se Petitioner, an
inmate incarcerated at FCI Gilmer in Glenville, West
Virginia, filed an Application for Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §2241, seeking an emergency recalculation of
good conduct time under the First Step Act. This matter is
pending before the undersigned for an initial review and
Report and Recommendation pursuant to LR PL P 2 and 28 U.S.C.
indicates that he was convicted of Bank Robbery/Conspiracy of
Bank Robbery in the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire following a jury trial. He further
indicates that he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 188
months on January 22, 2008, to be followed by three years of
supervised release. Petitioner is seeking access to good
conduct time under the First Step Act which became effective
in July of 2019. Specifically, Petitioner requests that this
Court direct the Bureau of Prisons to recalculate his good
time credit and file his halfway house paperwork with the new
release date so he will not spend extra time in prison.
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the
Court's Local Rules of Prisoner Litigation Procedure,
this Court is authorized to review such petitions for relief
and submit findings and recommendations to the District
Court. This Court is charged with screening Petitioner's
case to determine if “it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4,
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District
Courts; see also Rule 1(b) Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (a district court may
apply these rules to a habeas corpus petition not filed
pursuant to § 2254).
III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction
of the federal courts to cases or controversies. Therefore, a
case becomes moot when there is no viable legal issue left to
resolve. See Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486, 496
(1969). If developments occur during a case which render the
Court unable to grant a party the relief requested, the case
must be dismissed as moot. Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum
Co., 77 F.3d 690, 698-699 (3rd Cir. 1996).
Petitioner filed his habeas petition, the BOP inmate locater
indicated that his projected release date was October 27,
2020. It has now been updated to reflect a release date of
July 22, 2020. Accordingly, Petitioner's good conduct
time has been recalculated pursuant to the First Step ACT,
and the relief that he was requesting has been granted
without court intervention. Therefore, this case is now moot.
on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this
petition be DISMISSED AS MOOT. It is further
recommended that Petitioner's motion for Leave to Proceed
in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] and Motion to Send
Copies of the Pleadings to Judge Stamp Electronically [ECF
No. 6] be DENIED AS MOOT.
shall have fourteen (14) days from the date
of service of this Report and Recommendation within which to
file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written
objections, identifying the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of
such objection. A copy of such objections should
also be submitted to the United States District Judge.
Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or
twenty (20) ...