Ellsworth v. Denham

Filing 20

ORDER. ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [Docket No. 17] is GRANTED. ORDERED that applicants Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket No. 1] is DENIED as moot. ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 03/11/15. (jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01361-PAB
JOSEPH A. ELLSWORTH,
Applicant,
v.
WARDEN DEBORAH DENHAM,
Respondent.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
[Docket No. 17] filed by respondent.
On May 15, 2014, Mr. Ellsworth filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket No. 1], asserting that the United States Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) incorrectly calculated his sentence. Docket No. 1 at 9. At the time he
filed his petition, applicant was in custody at Federal Correctional Institution –
Englewood. Id. at 1. On August 15, 2014, respondent filed a Notice of Release from
Custody [Docket No. 16]. Attached to the notice was a declaration from BOP Senior
Attorney Kara Lundy, who states that applicant was released from custody on August 1,
2014. Docket No. 16-1 at 2, ¶ 3. On February 17, 2015, respondent filed the present
motion, arguing that applicant’s release from custody renders applicant’s application
moot and, as a result, that the Court lacks subject m atter jurisdiction over this action.
Docket No. 17 at 1. On February 17, 2015, the Court ordered applicant to f ile a

response to respondent’s motion on or before February 26, 2015. Docket No. 18. A
copy of the Court’s order was mailed to applicant, but was returned as undeliverable.
Docket No. 19.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), habeas jurisdiction “shall not extend to a prisoner
unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 2241(c)(3) if two
requirements are met: (1) the applicant is “in custody,” and (2) the custody is “in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). Applicant is no longer in
custody. As a result, his application for a writ of habeas corpus is moot and the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Arizonans for Official English v.
Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (“To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication,
an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the
complaint is filed.” (quotations omitted)).
Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [Docket
No. 17] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that applicant’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket No. 1] is DENIED as moot. It is further
1

The Local Rules require unrepresented parties such as applicant to apprise the
Court of any change of address. See D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(c) (“Notice of a change of
name, mailing address, or telephone number of an attorney or unrepresented party
shall be filed no later than five days after the change.”). Applicant’s failure to follow the
Local Rules, failure to respond to the Court’s minute order, and failure to respond to
respondent’s motion to dismiss constitute independent grounds to dismiss this case.
2

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED March 11, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3