McConville v. English

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 26 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 33 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 6/8/2018.Mailed to pro se party Jonathan L. McConville by regular mail. (sz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JONATHAN L. MCCONVILLE,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 17-3143-EFM-TJJ

NICOLE ENGLISH,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jonathan McConville was an inmate at the U.S. Penitentiary in Leavenworth,
Kansas (“USP Leavenworth”).1 He filed this action while he was incarcerated on August 21, 2017,
as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Defendant Nicole
English, the Warden of USP Leavenworth.2 McConville was released from Bureau of Prison
(“BOP”) custody on April 12, 2018.

1
McConville was convicted of Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) &
924(a)(1) in the Western District of Missouri. He was sentenced to 72 months’ incarceration followed by three years
of supervised release. McConville completed his term of imprisonment on April 12, 2018, and is currently on
supervised release.
2
After the Court notified McConville that his Complaint was deficient, McConville re-submitted his
Complaint on September 11, 2017.

In his Complaint, McConville claimed a denial of access to the courts in violation of the
First Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to the Eighth Amendment.
According to McConville, Warden English was, at the time, wrongfully holding him in solitary
confinement, and had been doing so for more than three years. McConville requested that Warden
English be ordered to provide an explanation as to why he is being held in solitary confinement.
And, if it was determined not to be warranted, he requested an order for him to be released to USP
Leavenworth’s general population. In an attached affidavit, McConville alternatively requested a
transfer to another institution. He has not requested any monetary damages.
Warden English now moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because. Warden English argues that because McConville has
been released from the custody of the BOP, his claims are now moot. McConville did not file a
response.
Rule 12(b)(1) provides that a court may dismiss a complaint based on lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Mootness is a threshold inquiry “because the existence of a live case or controversy
is a constitutional prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”3 To maintain the case or
controversy requirement, the parties must have a personal stake in the action and its outcome.4 “A
litigant lacks a personal stake if the injury is healed by an event or only prospective relief is

3

United States v. Fisher, 805 F.3d 982, 989 (10th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).

4

Id.

-2-

sought.”5 The Court must ask: “have circumstances changed since the beginning of litigation that
forestall any occasion for meaningful relief?”6 “If this has occurred, the case is moot.”7
Applying these legal standards, the Court determines that McConville’s claims for
injunctive relief are moot. The only relief sought by McConville was release from solitary
confinement and placement in the general population at USP Leavenworth or any other BOP
facility. But McConville was released from custody of the BOP on April 12, 2018. Thus, a
favorable decision will not afford McConville relief.8 Additionally, the injury McConville
complains of—placement in solitary confinement—is not capable of repetition.9

Because

McConville’s injury has been healed by his release from BOP custody, the Court must dismiss this
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Nicole English’s Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 33) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Nicole English’s motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim (Doc. 26) is DENIED AS MOOT.

5

Ritchie v. Deslauriers, 2017 WL 4758946, at *2 (D. Kan. 2017) (citing S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Smith,
110 F.3d 724, 727 (10th Cir. 1997)).
6

Id. (quoting Smith, 110 F.3d at 727).

7

Id. (citing Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1166 (10th Cir. 2016); Alexander v. Yale Univ., 631 F.2d 178,
183 (2d Cir. 1980)).
8

See McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 1999) (“[U]nder well-established Supreme
Court and Tenth Circuit law, when a favorable decision will not afford plaintiff relief, and plaintiff’s case is not
capable of repetition yet evading review, we have no jurisdiction under Article III.”).
9

See id. at 1215 (holding that “an inmate’s claim for prospective injunctive relief regarding conditions of
confinement becomes moot due to the inmate-plaintiff’s release from confinement, the inmate’s parole or supervised
release status does not, absent some exceptional showing, bring that claim under the narrow ‘capable of repetition, yet
evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine”). While McConville is currently on supervised release, he has
made no showing, let alone an exceptional one, that his claims fall under the “capable of repetition, yet evading
review” exception.

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Jonathan McConville’s claims against
Defendant Nicole English are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2018.

ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-