Butler v. Johns
Filing
13
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMISS as moot Butler's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, DIRECT the Clerk to CLOSE this case, and DENY Butler leave to proceed i n forma pauperis on appeal. The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 10/2/2017). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 9/18/2017. (ca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION
ANTONIO KYLE BUTLER,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:16-cv-110
v.
TRACY JOHNS,
Respondent.
ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Antonio Kyle Butler (“Butler”), who was formerly housed at the D. Ray James
Correctional Facility at Folkston, Georgia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Respondent filed a Response. (Doc. 11.) For the reasons which
follow, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS as moot Butler’s Petition, DIRECT the
Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case, and DENY Butler in forma pauperis status on appeal.
BACKGROUND
At the time that Butler filed this Section 2241 Petition, he was incarcerated at D. Ray
James pursuant to his sixty-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana. In his Section 22441, he did not challenge his conviction. Rather, he challenged
disciplinary action taken against him for violating Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) disciplinary rules
at D. Ray James. (Doc. 1.) Butler alleged his due process rights were violated when he was
issued an incident report for threatening bodily harm, and he contended that numerous errors
were made during the disciplinary process. (Id. at pp. 14–20.) Butler did not make clear what
relief he sought through his Petition, but it appears he requested that the sanctions against him at
D. Ray James be lifted.
In his Response to Butler’s Petition, Respondent asserted that Butler’s Petition is now
moot because he is no longer incarcerated. (Doc. 11.) Butler did not file a Reply opposing
Respondent’s assertion. Rather, the only filing from Butler is a Notice of Change of Address
indicating that he is now residing in an apartment in Birmingham, Alabama. (Doc. 12.)
DISCUSSION
I.
Whether Butler’s Petition is Moot
Article III of the Constitution “extends the jurisdiction of federal courts to only ‘Cases’
and ‘Controversies.’” Strickland v. Alexander, 772 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2014). This “caseor-controversy restriction imposes” what is “generally referred to as ‘justiciability’ limitations.”
Id. There are “three strands of justiciability doctrine—standing, ripeness, and mootness—that go
to the heart of the Article III case or controversy requirement.” Harrell v. The Fla. Bar, 608
F.3d 1241, 1247 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). With regard
to the mootness strand, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that “a federal court has
no authority ‘to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Church
of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (internal citation omitted).
Accordingly, “[a]n issue is moot when it no Butlerer presents a live controversy with respect to
which the court can give meaningful relief.” Friends of Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.,
570 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Questions of
justiciability are not answered “simply by looking to the state of affairs at the time the suit was
filed. Rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that the controversy ‘must be extant at all
2
stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’” Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v.
United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189–90 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S.
395, 401 (1975)).
As noted above, Respondent has informed the Court in his Response that Butler has been
released from custody. Butler’s Notice of Change of Address confirms this release. Butler only
requested relief pertaining to his detention at D. Ray James, including disciplinary sanctions
against him. However, he has been released from that detention and is no longer subject to those
sanctions.
Thus, there is no longer a “live controversy” over which the Court can give
meaningful relief. Friends of Everglades, 570 F.3d at 1216. Accordingly, the Court should
DISMISS as moot Butler’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
II.
Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis
The Court should also deny Butler leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Butler has,
of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these issues in the
Court’s order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal of party
proceeding in forma pauperis is not taken in good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is
filed”). An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is
not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this
context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691
(M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous
claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A claim or
argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal
theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Stated another way, an in forma pauperis action is
3
frivolous, and thus, not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable merit either in law or
fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v. United States,
Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1–2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).
Given the above analysis of Butler’s Petition and Respondent’s Response, there are no
non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus,
the Court should DENY in forma pauperis status on appeal.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS as moot Butler’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (doc. 1), DIRECT the
Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case, and DENY Butler leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to
file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and
Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address
any contention raised in the pleading must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later
challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be
served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle
through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.
Upon receipt of objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United
States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed
findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not
4
meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A
party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation directly to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final
judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the parties.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 18th day of September,
2017.
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
5
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?