Perry v. Rathman et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B Propst on 6/5/2012. (AVC)

FILED
2012 Jun-05 AM 09:53
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRENCE PERRY,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-2552-RBP-PWG

JOHN T. RATHMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This habeas action was filed by Terrence Perry (the “petitioner” or “Perry”) pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner claims that his Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment and Due
Process rights have been violated during his stay at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Talladega, AL.
On December 16, 2009, Perry was sentenced in the D.C. Superior Court to an 18-month
term of incarceration followed by five years supervised release. Perry was incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Talladega, AL (“FCI Talladega”). (Doc. 6-1 at 3). On July 30,
2010, a disturbance occurred on the institution compound, which involved 49 inmates from the
general population but appeared to be between two groups of inmates. (Docs. 6-2, 6-3 at ¶ 3).
Once the institution was secured, it was placed on “lockdown” status; one group of the inmates
involved were placed in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) on Administrative Detention Status.
(Id.). An investigation was conducted and Perry was identified as one of the inmates present
during the incident, although he had no idea the altercation was going to take place. (Docs. 6-2,
6-3 at ¶ 4). Perry was not identified as a direct participant, nor was he given a status report. (Id).

It was determined that due to on-going hostility, the two groups of inmates should remain
in administrative detention until their release or transfer. (Doc. 6-3 at ¶ 5). Perry had a halfway
house release date of October 20, 2010, and a good conduct time release date of February 20,
2011. (Docs. 6-6, 6-7, 6-3 at ¶ 6). He was considered for a transfer, but since he was scheduled to
be released shortly, it was determined that he should remain at FCI Talladega pending his release
to the halfway house. (Doc. 6-3 at ¶ 6).
These plans changed when FCI Talladega was notified in early October 2010 that the
U.S. Parole Commission (“USPC”) decided to lodge a detainer on Perry based on his conviction.
Docs. 6-7, 6-8, 6-3 at ¶ 7. Based on the detainer, the halfway house placement was removed. (Id.)
On February 2, 2011, FCI Talladega received an expedited revocation proposal for the petitioner,
which would allow the petitioner to waive an in-person revocation hearing, accept responsibility
for the violation behavior, and be provided a decision on the record. (Docs. 6-9, 6-3 at ¶ 7). Perry
accepted the expedited revocation proposal; the USPC revoked the petitioner’s term of
supervised release and imposed a new term of imprisonment of 12 months from the date the
warrant was executed. (Docs. 6-11, 6-3 at ¶ 7).
Based on the USPC decision, petitioner was given a new halfway house release date of
December 7, 2011, and a full term release date of March 5, 2012. (Docs. 6-12, 6-3 at ¶ 8). FCI
Talladega requested additional halfway house time for Perry on June 9, 2011, but the request was
denied due to bed-space limitations. (Docs. 6-13, 6-3 at ¶ 8). Due to Perry’s relatively short time
left on his sentence prior to his new halfway house release date, transfer to another institution
from SHU was not feasible. (Doc. 6-3 at ¶ 8). Perry was kept in SHU pending a hearing before
the Discipline Hearing Officer, following an August 30, 2011 incident. (Doc. 6-14, 6-3 at ¶ 9).
Scott filed this petition, raising the following claims: that he is being denied due process

by being held in SHU since July 30, 2010, without an incident report or hearing (Doc. 1 at ¶¶
10a, 10b); that SHU is infested with roaches and staff are not doing adequate treatments or
providing cleaning supplies (Doc. 1 at ¶ 10c); that he is unable to obtain legal copies from
TRULINKS in the law library because there is no default printer and staff will not assist him
(Doc. 1at ¶ 10d).
According to the United States Attorney’s Office and the Bureau of Prisons website,
petitioner has since completed his term of incarceration and was released on March 5, 2012.
Petitioner’s objective in filing his petition was to be released from SHU and obtain legal copies
of TRULINKS in the prison law library. Furthermore, although petitioner may still be serving a
term of supervised release, no claim made in his petition could alter the supervised release
portion of his sentence. Therefore, the issues presented in this case are moot, as the court can no
longer provide petitioner meaningful relief. See Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir.
2003) (“[A] case must be dismissed as moot if the court can no longer provide ‘meaningful
relief’”). Accordingly, this matter is due to be dismissed. See Villegas v. Bureau of Prisons,
2011 WL 6371424 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 11, 2011).
For the reasons stated above, the petition for habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate final order will be entered.
As to the foregoing it is SO ORDERED this the 5th day of June, 2012.

ROBERT B. PROPST
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE