Reaves v. Garrett
Filing
8
ORDER directing Respondent to confirm the facility assignment for Mr. Reaves as soon as possible and no later than Wednesday 03/19/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin on 03/11/2025. (llg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
DONALD LEE REAVES
Reg. #31551-001
VS.
PETITIONER
No. 2:24-CV-00177-BSM-ERE
CHAD GARRETT, Warden,
FCI-Forrest City
RESPONDENT
ORDER
On September 23, 2024, Petitioner Donald Lee Reaves, a Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) inmate, then confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City,
Arkansas (“FCI-Forrest City”), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. He alleged that the BOP failed to place him in prerelease custody, in
violation of the First Step Act and the Second Chance Act. Doc. 1 at 1. For relief,
Mr. Reaves asked the Court to order the BOP to place him in prerelease custody at
a halfway house or residential reentry center. Id. at 3.
According to information available on the Bureau of Prison’s website, Mr.
Reaves is no longer housed at FCI-Forrest City and has been placed in prerelease
custody at a halfway house or residential reentry center in Alabama. If Mr. Reaves
has been placed in prerelease custody, his petition is moot and should be dismissed
on that basis. See Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding
that § 2241 habeas petitions by inmates seeking placement in prerelease custody
were rendered moot and subject to dismissal when BOP placed inmates in residential
reentry centers).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent is directed to confirm the
facility assignment for Mr. Reaves. Respondent is requested to provide this
information as soon as possible and no later than Wednesday March 19, 2025.
Dated 11 March 2025.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
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?