Abramov v. Caraway
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 9/30/2011. (c/m 9/30/2011 rk) (ranks, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GIDON ABRAMOV, #63359-053
Petitioner,
vs.
J. F. CARAWAY, WARDEN
Respondent.
*
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. DKC-10-3086
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Gidon Abramov is a federal prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution-Cumberland. On November 1, 2010, he filed a self-represented Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, challenging the conduct of disciplinary proceedings
which resulted in the loss of good conduct credits. ECF No. 1. Respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, which Petitioner opposes. ECF Nos. 9 &
14.
Respondent then sought, and was granted, extensions of time to reply to Petitioner’s
opposition, indicating to the court that it intended to remand Petitioner’s case to the Disciplinary
Hearing Office for rehearing and restoration of Petitioner’s good conduct time subject to the
rehearing. ECF Nos. 13, 15, 17, & 18.
Respondent has now filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition, arguing that the Petition is
moot as the case has been remanded for a rehearing and Petitioner’s good conduct credits have
been restored pending the rehearing. ECF No. 19. Petitioner has not replied.1
1
Pursuant to the dictates of Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975), on August 12, 2011,
Petitioner was notified Respondent had filed a dispositive motion, the granting of which could result in the dismissal
of his action. ECF No.20. Petitioner was informed that he was entitled to file materials in opposition to that motion
within seventeen (17) days from the date of that letter and that his failure to file a timely or responsive pleading or to
illustrate, by affidavit or the like, a genuine dispute of material fact, could result in the dismissal of his case or in the
entry of summary judgment without further notice of the court. Id.
Respondent asserts that the Petition is moot as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Discipline
Hearing Administrator has remanded Petitioner’s case to the FCI-Cumberland Disciplinary
Hearing Office for a rehearing on a reduced charge. The incident report will be revised to reflect
the reduced charge and Petitioner’s good conduct time has been restored subject to the rehearing.
ECF No. 19, Ex. 1.
“‘[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283 (4th Cir.
2008) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). “ ‘The inability of the federal
judiciary to review moot cases derives from the requirement of Art. III of the Constitution under
which the exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence of a case or controversy.’” Id.
(quoting DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974)). An actual controversy must exist at
all times while the case is pending. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459 n.10 (1974).
Where developments occur during the course of a case which prevent the court from being able
to grant the relief requested, the case must be dismissed. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95
(1968). Indeed, “[w]here on the face of the record it appears that the only concrete interest in
the controversy has terminated, reasonable caution is needed to be sure that mooted litigation is
not pressed forward, and unnecessary juridical pronouncements on even constitutional issues
obtained…”
See Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp,
494 U.S. 472, 480 (1990). “[O]ne such
circumstance mooting a claim arises 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) (citing
Broughton v. North Carolina, 717 F. 2d 147, 149 (4th Cir. 1983).
To the extent Petitioner is seeking the restoration of good conduct credits, the credits
have been restored pending rehearing of the case. If he is dissatisfied with the results or conduct
2
of the new hearing, he is free to file a new case regarding those claims. Accordingly, the Petition
shall be dismissed as moot.
Date:
September 30, 2011
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
3
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?