Olles v. Outlaw

Filing 43

ORDER Requesting Additional Briefing by May 21, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 5/7/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
BOBBY OLLES,
Petitioner,
v.
T C OUTLAW, Warden, FCI-Forrest City

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-CV-00109 JTK

Respondent.
ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING
BEFORE THE COURT is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) filed by
Petitioner Bobby Olles on June 16, 2011. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a
Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 37), and the action is ready for decision.
Petitioner contends that he was incorrectly denied federal custody credit for 483 days that
he spent in state custody because he was erroneously being held by the state.

However,

Petitioner was recently released on March 6, 2012.
Although his release does not render the action moot based on custodial requirements,1 it
does appear that there is no longer any case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the
Constitution. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (holding that mootness is not an issue if a
petitioner was “in custody” at the time the petition was filed).

“This case-or-controversy

requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Lewis
v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a
litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and
likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision” Id. (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,

1

Petitioner appears to recognize that his release was likely fatal to his claims. See Motion for
Hearing, Doc. No. 35; Motion to Stay Proceedings, Doc. No. 36.
1

750-51 (1984)).
In United States v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner’s period of
supervised release cannot be offset by the extra time that the prisoner spent in prison
erroneously. 529 U.S. 53 (2000). Although Johnson was primarily based upon a textual reading
of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), the Court also noted that supervised release is imposed distinctly from
imprisonment and it “fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration.”
Id. at 59. Accordingly, the current action should be dismissed because there does not appear to
be any relief available under the petition. If Petitioner believes that this assessment is incorrect,
he must file a brief explaining why by May 21, 2012.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2012.

__________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge

2