King v. State of Maryland et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM filed. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 3/11/2015. (c/m 3/12/15)(kr, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

REGINALD KING, #368662
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, et al.
Respondent.

*
* CIVIL ACTION NO. JKB-14-3846
*
*****
MEMORANDUM

On December 10, 2014, this court-construed 28 U.S.C. § 2241 letter petition for habeas
corpus was received for filing from Reginald King (“King”), an inmate formerly housed at the
Maryland Reception, Diagnostic and Classification Center (“MRDCC”) in Baltimore. The action
represents a challenge to King’s arrest on a parole retake warrant and his continuing detention
without a parole revocation hearing. ECF No. 1.
Respondents filed a court-ordered response, styled as a motion to dismiss, which remains
unopposed as of the within signature date. ECF No. 4. On March 10, 2015, a letter mailed to King
pursuant to the dictates of Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), was returned to the
court as “undeliverable as addressed.” ECF No. 7.
The record filed by respondents shows that on January 30, 2015, King received a parole
revocation hearing, was found not guilty of violating the conditions of his release, and was
subsequently released on the retake warrant to mandatory supervision that same date. ECF No. 4,
Exs. A & B. King has not provided the court notice of his current address.
King has been released from Division of Correction (“DOC”) confinement. Therefore, his
habeas petition has been rendered moot as he has received the sought after relief. “A habeas corpus
petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the

Constitution.” Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523
U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal
judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
(1990). The parties must continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit. Id. at
478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)). “This means that, throughout the
litigation, the complainant ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to
the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7
(quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). King’s release from DOC custody moots this action, as there is no
habeas relief for the court to grant. See Belasco v. Warden, 156 F. App’x 671, *1 (5th Cir. 2005)
(unpublished); see also Spencer, 523 U.S. at 13-14 (habeas petitioners that are no longer in custody
must demonstrate a concrete and continuing injury that is a collateral consequence of detention).
Respondents’ motion to dismiss shall be granted. This petition shall be dismissed. The court
declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A separate Order follows.

Date: March 11, 2015

/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2