Adames v. Edenfield et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: IT IS ORDERED (1) Pet's 7 MOTION for Status Report is GRANTED; (2) Pet's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED AS MOOT; (3) Court will enter appropriate judgment; and (4) matter is STRICKEN from active docket. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 01/17/2013.(DAK)cc: COR,Pro Se Pet(via U.S. Mail w/updated docket sheet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON

SANTOS ADAMES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
V.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.
****

****

Civil Action No. 5:11-CV-424-KSF

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

****

****

While Santos Adames was an inmate confined in the Federal Medical Center in Lexington,
Kentucky,1 he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1], challenging
a prison disciplinary conviction arising out of an incident on October 11, 2009, when he was
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Big Spring, Texas. Adames claimed that the
conviction violated his due process rights, and he sought a court order expunging the conviction,
vacating the sanctions imposed, and directing the BOP to restore his forfeited good time credits.
Adames also sought a reprimand against all BOP staff involved; an order transferring him to an
institution closer to his home; an order compelling the BOP to provide him with needed medical
care; an investigation regarding racial discrimination; and $3.5 million in compensatory damages.
The Court screened Adames’s habeas corpus petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In
a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on October 31, 2012, the Court directed respondent

1

Adames has since been released to the Houston Community Corrections Office in Houston,
Texas. See http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMore
List=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=23338-149-1718x=718y=10 (last visited on January 14,
2013). His projected release date is May 23, 2013.

Warden Quintana to respond to Adames’s claim that his conviction for the charged prison offense
was obtained in violation of his due process rights. The Court dismissed all of Adames’s other
claims, which challenged the conditions of his confinement, without prejudice to his right to refile
them in a civil rights action under the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Warden Quintana has filed his response to Adames’s habeas petition. [R. 14] He advises
that upon review of Adames’s petition, the BOP has expunged Incident Report #1929047 from
Adames’s prison records and has updated Adames’s good conduct time record to reflect that no good
time credits were forfeited as a result of the offense charged in Incident Report #1929047. Since
Adames’s forfeited good time credits have been restored, Quintana submits that Adames has
received all of the relief to which he is entitled in this petition, that his claims are now moot, and that
this action is subject to dismissal because no viable issue remains to be resolved.
APPLICABLE LAW
Article III of the United States Constitution allows federal courts to adjudicate only actual,
ongoing cases or controversies. Thomas Sysco Food Services v. Martin, 983 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1993).
See also Thornton v. Hambrick, 992 F.2d 1217 (6th Cir. 1993); Americans United for Separation
of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, 509 F.3d 406, 420-21 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing
Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000). “This case-or-controversy requirement
subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate” and, “[w]hen an action
no longer satisfies the case or controversy requirement, the action is moot and a federal court must
dismiss the action.” Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 611 (8th Cir. 2003); Brock v.
U.S. Dept. of Justice, 256 F. App’x 748, 750 (6th Cir. 2007). Article III of the Constitution limits
2

the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases or controversies. A case becomes moot when there is
no viable legal issue left to resolve. Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). If
developments occur during the course of a case which renders the court unable to grant a party the
relief requested, the case must be dismissed as moot. Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Co., 77 F.3d
690, 698-99 (3rd Cir. 1996); Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar Assoc., 983 F.2d 718 (6th Cir. 1993).
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 California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting
Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). A claim becomes moot when “the claimant receives the
relief he or she sought to obtain through the claim.” Friedman’s Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197
(4th Cir. 2002). See also Saladin v. Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 693 (11th Cir. 1987)(“A case is
moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack legal cognizable interest in
the outcome of the litigation, such as where there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will
occur again or where interim relief or events have eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”).
In the present case, Adames requested that his disciplinary conviction be expunged from his
record and that the good conduct time forfeited as a result of that conviction be restored. Warden
Quintana reports that, as a result of the BOP’s investigation, it has both expunged the disciplinary
conviction from Adames’s disciplinary file and has restored his lost good conduct time. [R. 14-1,
p. 18-19] Thus, Adames has received the relief requested, and no controversy remains with respect
to Incident Report #1929047. See Lynn v. Wiley, No. 07-cv-01856-MSK, 2010 WL 1978172 (D.
Colo. May 14, 2010).

3

In this habeas proceeding, the Court’s review is limited to determining solely whether
Adames’s confinement as a result of the disciplinary conviction violated the Constitution. Since
that disciplinary conviction has been expunged from Adames’s records, the Court’s inquiry is at an
end. Sloley v. O’Brien, No. 7:07-cv-00507, 2008 WL 2852023, at *2 (W.D. Va. July 22, 2008) (no
viable issues remained to be resolved, where the disciplinary action was remanded for rehearing by
the administrative board, and the inmate discipline record was updated to “reflect no loss of good
conduct time based on the challenged disciplinary action”); Ashby v. Lehman, No. CO3-5385RJB,
2007 WL 1521528, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2007) (restoration of good time credits rendered the
case moot); Randall v. Martinez, 289 F. App’x. 478, 480 (3rd Cir. 2008) (habeas corpus petition
mooted, to the extent it requested restoration of good time credits, when BOP restored the credits
on its own volition and expunged the incident report).
Thus, in the case at hand there remains no viable controversy in relation to the disciplinary
conviction and the resulting loss of good time credits. The other sanctions imposed, including
placement in disciplinary segregation and the loss of certain privileges, do not implicate a
constitutional liberty interest and are not actionable in a federal habeas petition. “[Section] 2241 is
a vehicle not for challenging prison conditions but for challenging matters concerning the execution
of a sentence such as the computation of good-time credits.” Sullivan v. United States, 90 F.App’x
862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004); Simms v. United States, No. 08-043-HRW, 2009 WL 3061994, at *5 (E.D.
Ky. Sept. 21, 2009) (“The exclusive remedy for challenging the BOP's calculation of a federal
sentence is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ....”).
Consequently, Adames has already received all of the relief to which he would otherwise
have been entitled on the claims raised in his habeas petition. His request that Incident Report
4

#1929047 be expunged from his BOP file and that his good time credits be restored is moot, as the
BOP has already provided that relief to him. All other claims raised in Adames’s habeas petition
are not cognizable in a Section 2241 habeas petition. Adames is free to pursue these other claims
in a Bivens action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner Santos Adames’s motion for a status report [R. 7] is GRANTED.

2.

Petitioner Santos Adames’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 1] is DENIED
AS MOOT.

3.

The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.

4.

This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.

This January 17, 2013.

5