Culclager v. Outlaw

Filing 19

ORDER that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by LaKeith Culclager is dismissed with prejudice; the relief prayed for is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 3/27/12. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
LAKEITH CULCLAGER, Reg. #25079-009
v.

PETITIONER

NO. 2:10CV00047 JLH-JTK

T.C. OUTLAW, Warden,
FCI – Forrest City

RESPONDENT
ORDER

Petitioner, LaKeith Culclager, has requested a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner does not challenge his conviction, but only seeks twelve months of
pre-release placement in a residential reentry center. Petitioner contends that pre-release would
further his individual needs because he has “a high likelihood to be employed if on home
confinement,” his family needs the support of his income, and his medical needs require attention
away from incarceration. Petitioner was released from the Forrest City Correctional Institution
on February 2, 2011.1 Consequently, it is impossible for the Court to grant Petitioner habeas
relief.2
Furthermore, Petitioner’s loss of pre-release placement carries no collateral consequences.
His concerns regarding employment and his medical needs was as fully resolved by his release as
it could have been by community or home confinement. Cf. Leonard v. Nix, 55 F.3d 370, 372
(8th Cir. 1995) (“Where the allegedly illegal punishment does not produce any collateral

1

See Inmate Locator, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=fals
e&FirstName=lakeith&Middle=&LastName=culclager&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=71&y=21
(last visited March 26, 2012); cf. Doc. #15.
2

Now that he is free, Petitioner undoubtedly no longer wishes to serve “community
confinement or home detention.” Doc. #15.

consequences independent of the underlying conviction, the case will be mooted by physical
release.”); James v. Outlaw, 142 Fed. App’x 274, 275 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2005) (per curiam) (“[The
prisoner] was released from prison while the appeal was pending, return of the good-time credits
at issue would have no effect on his current term of supervised release, and at this time we see no
collateral consequences from the challenged disciplinary action.”).
Thus, Petitioner’s claims must be dismissed as moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S.
149, 150, 116 S. Ct. 2066, 2067, 135 L. Ed. 2d 453 (1996) (per curiam) (dismissal appropriate
when event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and it is hereby, dismissed, with prejudice. Doc. #1. The relief
prayed for is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2012.

J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2