BOOTH v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al

Filing 44

Entry and Order Dismissing Action - The court does not have jurisdiction over his claims and the BOP's motion to dismiss 25 must be granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/15/2013. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SHAUN K. BOOTH,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.

2:11-cv-294-JMS-WGH

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
Shaun Booth brings this action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) claiming that the BOP violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
when the BOP enacted the Blue/Gold program at the Federal Correctional Center in
Terre Haute, Indiana. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
Booth was an inmate at the United States Penitentiary (“USP”) in Terre
Haute from July 29, 2009 through September 11, 2012, when he was transferred to
a community corrections facility in advance of being released entirely from BOP
custody. In other words, Booth is no longer confined at the USP Terre Haute and no
longer able to be placed in the Blue/Gold program. In light of these developments,
the BOP argues that Booth’s claims must be dismissed as moot because Booth is no
longer in BOP custody.
“‘[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties
lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529
U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631
(1979)).
Because a moot case does not present a “case or controversy” under
Article III, a finding of mootness deprives a federal court of the
authority to act. The doctrine is premised upon the belief that a court
should not enjoy the power to decide an unnecessary question that
cannot affect the rights of the litigants before it. A finding of mootness
can thus render the dismissal of a case appropriate.
Rembert v. Sheahan, 62 F.3d 937, 940 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing Charles v. Daley, 749
F.2d 452, 456 (7th Cir. 1984)).

Here, Booth’s case is now moot because he has been transferred out of the
USP Terre Haute and to a community corrections facility in Texas. He is therefore
no longer subject to placement in the Blue/Gold program. With his transfer, the
controversy posed by Booth’s APA challenge is no longer live and therefore not
justiciable. A court lacks jurisdiction over a claim which is moot. Board of Educ. of
Downers Grove Grade School Dist. No. 58 v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir.
1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1556 (1997).
Because Booth’s claims are moot, the court does not have jurisdiction over his
claims and the BOP’s motion to dismiss [25] must be granted.
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

03/15/2013
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Shaun K. Booth
11145-078
County Rehabilitation Center Inc.
P.O. Box 5455
Tyler, TX 75712
All electronically registered counsel

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana