Darnell v. United States of America

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice as moot and denying habeas corpus petition. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 01/02/2014. (kbl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KAREN S. DARNELL,
Petitioner,
vs.
VICTOR VEGA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 13-8-DRH-CJP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:

Petitioner Karen Darnell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 4, 2013 (Doc. 1). Ms. Darnell claimed the Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) failed to properly evaluate her request for transfer to a
Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”), also referred to as a community correctional
center (“CCC”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). She specifically claimed she
was given an inadequate time of only five months in an RRC after BOP failed to
consider her request under the proper five factor analysis mandated by 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b). Invoking the Second Chance Act, 18 U.S.C. 3624(c), she asked the Court

Page 1 of 4

to order the BOP to consider her for placement in an RRC for the full twelve months
allowed under that statute.

Respondent argued that Ms. Darnell’s petition was moot because she was
transferred to an RRC in March 2013, and therefore had already obtained the relief
she sought in her habeas petition (Doc. 12). Ms. Darnell was ordered to show
cause, in writing, before December 23, 2013, why her petition should not be
dismissed as moot (Doc. 17).

Ms. Darnell was clearly warned that failure to

respond by the deadline would result in the dismissal of her case with prejudice
(Doc. 17). Ms. Darnell’s deadline has come and passed, and she has failed to
respond to the Court’s order to show cause.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the exercise of judicial power to
those claims that present a live case or controversy.

A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d

787, 790 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)).

That

is, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury
traceable to the [respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.”

Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,

494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990)). After a habeas petitioner has been released from
custody some “concrete and continuing injury” or “collateral consequences” must
exist as a result of the detention being challenged for the suit to present a continued

Page 2 of 4

case or controversy.

Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (citing Carafas v. LaVallee, 391

U.S. 234, 237-38 (1968)). A case or controversy will become moot if the Court
cannot give the petitioner any effective relief. Butler, 360 F.3d at 790.

Here, Ms. Darnell asked the Court to order the BOP to consider her for
placement in an RRC for longer than the BOP had initially determined. However,
the record established that during the pendency of this action, Ms. Darnell was
released to an RRC (Doc. 12-1, p. 5). It has also come to the Court’s attention that
Ms. Darnell was released from custody altogether on August 8, 2013.
Locator, FED. BUREAU

OF

Inmate

PRISONS, http://www.bop.gov/Locate/ (last visited

December 27, 2013). Accordingly, her petition has been rendered moot because
the Court can no longer provide Ms. Darnell with the relief she seeks. See Demis
v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 513 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Because Demis already was
transferred to [an RRC] and now has been released from custody, no actual injury
remains that the Court could redress that we could redress with this appeal. We
therefore must dismiss Demis' appeal as moot.”) Additionally, Ms. Darnell has not
alleged collateral consequences capable of maintaining this Court's jurisdiction, as
she merely challenged the length of her CCC placement.

Consequently, Karen Darnell’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as

Page 3 of 4

MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 2nd day of January, 2014.

David R.
Herndon
2014.01.02
07:54:12 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 4 of 4