Eden v. Cozza-Rhodes
Filing
29
ORDER dismissing as moot 6 Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/8/15. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03014-LTB
CASEY D. EDEN,
Applicant,
v.
T. COZZA-RHODES,
Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Applicant, Casey D. Eden, a former federal prisoner, initiated this action by filing pro se
an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, while he was
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. Applicant claimed that the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) miscalculated his sentence by failing to credit him for time served in
federal custody prior to trial.
As part of the preliminary consideration of the Amended
Application, the Court ordered Respondent to file a Preliminary Response limited to addressing
the affirmative defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies with respect to the execution
of his sentence (ECF No. 14). On February 17, 2015, Respondent filed a Preliminary Response
(ECF No. 23) that addressed the exhaustion question. In addition, on February 18, 2015,
Respondent filed a “Status Report,” which appeared to indicate that Petitioner’s sentencing
credit claim now is moot. Accordingly, on March 26, 2015, the Court ordered Respondent to
file a Supplement to its Preliminary Response (ECF No. 26). On April 16, 2015, Respondents
file a Supplement (ECF No. 28) wherein they assert that Applicant’s claim now is moot. This
Court agrees.
Pursuant to Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, federal courts can
only consider ongoing cases or controversies. Lewis v. Continental Bank, Corp., 494 U.S. 472,
477-78 (1990). When a habeas petitioner challenges his underlying conviction, and he is
released during the pendency of his habeas petition, federal courts presume that "a wrongful
1
criminal conviction has continuing collateral consequences" sufficient to satisfy the injury
requirement. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998). However, when a petitioner does not
attack his conviction, the injury requirement is not presumed. In the absence of continuing
collateral consequences, a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review moot
habeas claims. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) ("mootness is a jurisdictional
question").
Here, Applicant’s claim does not address his underlying conviction. Rather, he claimed
that BOP improperly calculated his release date. As Respondent notes, however, since
Applicant filed his application, BOP has audited his sentence computation and determined that
he is entitled to prior custody credit. Consequently, BOP has released Applicant from its
custody. Because Applicant’s challenge was only to his entitlement to early release, he cannot
allege any continuing collateral consequences. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. See also Rhodes
v. Judiscak, 676 F.3d 931, 935 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that a § 2241 habeas petition
challenging only the Applicant’s sentence computation is mooted by the Applicant’s release
from custody). Therefore, the court will dismiss his Application as moot. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2241 filed by Casey D. Eden (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED as moot. 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 Plaintiff 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 at Denver, Colorado, this
8th
day of
May
, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?