Friends Jr. v. Denham
ORDER granting 30 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. The Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 1 is denied as moot and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/2/2015. (ebuch)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02477-PAB
TONY FRIENDS JR.,
DEBORAH DENHAM, Warden, FCI Englewood,
ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
This matter comes before the Court on respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Due to Mootness [Docket No. 30]. Applicant,
Tony Friends Jr., filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on Septem ber 5, 2014
while he was confined at the Englewood Federal Correctional Institution in Littleton,
Colorado. Applicant claimed that institutional staff violated 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) when
they did not consider each relevant factor when deciding his eligibility for Residential
Re-Entry Center (“RRC”) placement. He sought a ten-month placement in an RRC, to
occur no later than October 31, 2014, and an ev aluation to determine if home detention
On January 28, 2015, Applicant became eligible for placement in home
confinement and was placed on a waiting list. Docket No. 30-1 at 4. He was placed
into the RRC located in Kansas City, Missouri on February 3, 2015. Id. On May 1,
2015, Applicant was placed in home confinement. Id. His projected release date is
July 28, 2015.
I. MOOTNESS DOCTRINE
Respondent moves the Court to dismiss the § 2241 Application as moot because
Applicant has been released from custody into an RRC. Docket No. 30. “Mootness is
a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional
prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction.” McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d
863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009). “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.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). At all stages
of the case, the parties must have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit.
Spencer v. Kenma, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477-78). Federal
courts have no authority to give an opinion upon a question that is moot as a result of
events that occur during the pendency of the action. Church of Scientology v. United
States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992).
Because Mr. Friends has been released to an RRC, there no long er is a case or
controversy for the Court to determine. Therefore, the action will be dismissed as moot
and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accord Page v. Wiley, No. 06-1616, 2009
WL 416272 (D. Colo. Feb. 17, 2009) (§ 2241 application m oot where prisoner was
placed in community corrections center after application was filed). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 30] is GRANTED.
It is further
ORDERED that the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 [Docket No. 1] is denied as moot and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
It is further
ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. The
Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Mr.
Friends files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
DATED July 2, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
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?