Wallace v. State of Maryland
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 1/17/2017. (c/m 1/17/17)(kr2, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STATE OF MARYLAND
Civil Action No. JFM-16-3534
On January 13,2017, respondent filed an answer to the above-entitled petition for writ of
habeas corpus stating that the matter has been rendered moot. ECF 7. This court issued an order
to show cause on December 6, 2016 (ECF 5), which also directed the Clerk to provide a copy of
the order to petitioner.
The copy of the order mailed to petitioner was returned as undeliverable
on December 16,2016.
The petition, filed pursuant 28 U.S.C. 92241, challenged the validity of petitioner's pretrial incarceration.
Pretrial federal habeas relief is available under 9 2241 if the petitioner is in
custody, has exhausted
state court remedies,
and special circumstances
exist that justify
intervention by the federal court. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224-26 (5th Cir.
1987). Exhaustion is established where both the operative facts and controlling legal principles
of each claim have been fairly presented to the state courts.
276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d
In the pretrial context, federal courts must abstain
from exercising jurisdiction over a claim that may be resolved through trial of the merits or by
other state procedures available for review of the claim.
Court, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973).
See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Respondent submits the certified docket entries from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
pertaining to petitioner's
ECF 7 at Ex. l.
Those docket entries establish that
petitioner was detained on July 28, 2016, on charges of robbery and assault. Id. Petitioner pled
guilty to the second-degree assault charge on December I, 2016, and was sentenced to serve five
years in prison, all suspended but four months and 18 days. Id. Petitioner was placed on twoyears of probation. Id. Subsequent to his guilty plea, petitioner was released from custody. Id.
"A habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under
2, of the Constitution."
Aragon v. Shanh,
(citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,7 (1998».
144 F.3d 690, 691 (10th Cir. 1998)
through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate."
Corp., 494 U.S. 472,477-78
outcome" of the lawsuit.
Lewis v. Continental Bank
(1990). The parties must continue to have a "personal stake in the
Id. at 478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,101
"This means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff 'must have suffered, or be threatened
with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).
Petitioner's release from custody renders his challenge to the validity of his confinement
The petition must be dismissed as moot.
Additionally, this court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability as the claim presented is not one that "deserve[s] encouragement to
proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
A separate order follows.
8~:IIWV L I NVrLlDl
,],-"ViAlJ'lI'i .10 lJIlJ1SIO
1 nO;) lJllHSIO 'S'O
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?