Burrell v. Morgan et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/13/13. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JAMES BURRELL,

Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 12-1565-RGA

PHILIP MORGAN, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM
Petitioner James Burrell ("Burrel/") has filed a document titled "Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus" ("petition"), dated November 19,2012. (D.1. 1) Burrell was arrested
on August 22, 2012 for violating his probation with respect to an unidentified
Pennsylvania conviction. He was detained at the Howard R. Young Correctional
Institution in Wilmington, Delaware, and refused to waive extradition. Burrell's
extradition hearing was originally set for September 20, 2012, but was continued for
sixty days. On November 19, 2012, Burrell was taken to court and was informed that
he would be transported to Pennsylvania. Id. He was extradited to Media,
Pennsylvania on November 21,2012. (D.1. 5) Burrell requests immediate release on
the basis that Delaware detained him longer than the ninety-day period applicable to
extradition cases. See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 2501-2530 (Uniform Criminal
Extradition Law).
Federal courts are required to liberally construe pro se filings. See Royce v.
Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, a district court may summarily

dismiss a habeas petition "if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." See Rule 4,28 U.S.C.
foil. § 2254. 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). "This means that, throughout the litigation, the
plaintiff must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the
defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spencer v.

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,7 (1998). A case becomes moot, thereby divesting a court of
jurisdiction, if the "issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome." Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982).
An accused may challenge the legality of his extradition proceedings via a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80 (1885). However,
"[o]nce the fugitive is returned to the demanding state, the right to challenge extradition
becomes moot: the fugitive is no longer being detained by the asylum state, and so, the
legality of his or detention there is no longer at issue." See Barton v. Norrod, 106 F.3d
1289,1298 (6 th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, because Burrell has been returned to
Pennsylvania, the demanding state, the court will summarily dismiss as moot the instant
petition challenging his detention in Delaware. The court also declines to issue a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d
470 (3d Cir. 1997); 3d Cir. LAR. 22.2 (2011). A separate order follows.

UNITED STATES

2

ISTRICT JUDGE