Jackson v. Johnson et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/17/2014. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL A. JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No.l3-1629-RGA
G.R. JOHNSON, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael A. Jackson. Pro se Petitioner.
Gregory E. Smith, Deputy Attorney General of the Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorney for Respondents.
April
Jl_, 2014
l
~!A~~
ANDREWS, UNI'f~D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Michael A. Jackson's ("Petitioner") Application
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"). (D.I. 1) The State has
filed an Answer in opposition. (D.I. 8) For the reasons discussed, the Court will dismiss the
Petition as moot.
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 3, 2013, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of driving under the influence of
alcohol- fourth offense. (D.I. 8 at 1) That same day, the Superior Court sentenced Petitioner to
five years at Level V incarceration, with credit for twenty-two days, to be suspended after six
months for two years at Level III probation. !d.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on September 30, 2013, asserting that his good-time
credits were incorrectly computed and that he should have been released from Level V
incarceration on September 28, 2103. (D.I. 1 at 1) Petitioner was released from Level V
incarceration on October 1, 2013, and he is presently on probation. !d.
II.
ARTICLE III JURISDICTION AND MOOTNESS
According 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); United States v. Kissinger, 309 F.3d 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2002) (finding that an
actual controversy must exist during all stages of litigation). The "case-or-controversy
requirement subsists through all stages offederaljudicial proceedings." Lewis, 494 U.S. at 47778.
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 criminal conviction
has continuing collateral consequences" sufficient to satisfy the injury requirement. Spencer v.
Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998); see Steele v. Blackman, 236 F.3d 130, 134 n.4 (3d Cir. 2001).
However, collateral consequences will not be presumed when a petitioner does not attack his
conviction but, instead, challenges a "sentence that has already been served." Burkey v.
Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2009). In such cases, the collateral consequences must be
proven and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. !d. at 148; Spencer, 523 U.S.
at 7. 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").
III.
DISCUSSION
In this case, Petitioner only asks to be released from Level V incarceration; he does not
challenge his underlying conviction or the terms of his probation. Petitioner has already
obtained his requested relief, and he does not allege any continuing collateral consequences
stemming from the claim in his Petition that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision in
this federal habeas proceeding. By failing to demonstrate continuing collateral consequences,
Petitioner has failed to satisfy Article III's "case or controversy" requirement. Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss the instant Petition as moot.
IV.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A district court issuing a final order denying a § 2254 petition must also decide whether
to issue a certificate of appealability. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A
federal court denying a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying
constitutional claims is not required to issue a certificate of appealability unless the petitioner
2
demonstrates that jurists of reason would find it debatable: (1) whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the court was correct in its
procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The Court has concluded that the instant Petition is moot. Reasonable jurists would not
find this conclusion to be debatable. Accordingly, the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the Court concludes that the Petition must be dismissed as
moot. An appropriate Order will be entered.
3
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?