Williams v. United States Of America et al
ORDER - GRANTING 14 Motion to Amend and 15 Motion to transfer. DENYING as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/11/2011. Copy sent to petitioner via US Mail. (Indig, A.) [Transferred from North Carolina Eastern on 7/14/2011.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES E. WILLIAMS, JR.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing
that respondents failed to provide him with a placement at a Residential Reentry Center ("RRC") six
months prior to the expiration of his sentence. As relief\ petitioner requests immediate transfer to
a RRC. Also before the court are respondents' motion to dismiss (DE # 10), petitioner's motion to
amend (DE # 14), and petitioner's motion to transfer (DE # 15).
Petitioner was released from incarceration on June 2, 2011. Accordingly, it is clear that
petitioner's original § 2241 claim is moot because he received the relief sought. See Williams v.
Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991); see also Belasco v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst. Big Spring,
156 F. App'x. 671 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Elwood v. Sanders, 152 F. App'x 558 (8th Cir.
2005) (per curiam). But petitioner seeks to amend his petition to add a claim that requesting that his
supervised release be reduced by five or six months because he was not transferred to a RRC six
months prior to his release. There is authority that a court could provide a petitioner with some
"effectual relief' by shortening the length of his supervised release time ifhe is successful on this
claim. See. e.g., Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71, 77 (2d Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the court now turns to petitioner's motion to amend and motion to transfer.
Petitioner's request to amend his petition requires leave of court. See F.R.Civ.P. 15(a). "Motions
to amend are committed to the discretion of the trial court." Keller v. Prince George's County, 923
F.2d 30, 33 (4th Cir. 1991). "In the absence of any apparent or declared reason - such as undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue ofallowance ofthe
amendment, futility of amendment, etc. - the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely
given.''' Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, the court finds that justice requires
petitioner be allowed to amend his petition to assert his claim seeking a reduction in the period of
his supervised release.
Only the sentencing court can "modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised
release." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2); see United States v. Nanahal, 338 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 2003)
("A sentencing court retains jurisdiction to modify or revoke supervised release after consideration
of enumerated factors.") Because petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama and has been released from incarceration, this court can not
provide him with the relief he requests. Accordingly, this court will transfer this action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama to adjudicate petitioner's request
to shorten his supervised release.
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner's motion to amend (DE # 14) and motion to
transfer (DE # 15) are GRANTED. Respondents' motion to dismiss (DE # 10) is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama.
SO ORDERED, this the ~ day of July, 2011.
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?