Valdez v. Stewart
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/19/14. (jf2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DANIEL VALDEZ # 3698079
*
Petitioner
*
v.
*
TIMOTHY S. STEWART, WARDEN
Respondent
Civil Action No. DKC-14-1401
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending is Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend and Request for Expedited Review
(ECF No. 3) and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for mootness (ECF No. 4). Petitioner was
notified of an opportunity to respond to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) but has failed to do
so. No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions pending before the court. See Local Rule
105.6 (D. Md. 2014).
Petitioner’s Allegations
Petitioner Daniel Valdez is a prisoner confined in the Federal Correctional Institution
(FCI) in Cumberland Maryland, for service of a sentence imposed by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana. (ECF No. 1 at pp. 1 – 2).1 He asserts that while incarcerated he was improperly
convicted of misconduct, resulting in the loss of 41 days of good time credit. (ECF No. 1-2). He
seeks expunction of the incident report charging him with misconduct and restoration of his good
time credit. Id.
1
Pagination references ECF page numbers.
Respondent contends Valdez’s claim has been rendered moot, because the incident report
was expunged on June 2, 2014, and the 41 days of good conduct time has been restored. (ECF
No. 4-1 at 1 and 4-2).
Analysis
“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 Apersonal stake in the
outcome@ of the litigation. Id. at 478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)).
“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
decision.’” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).
A claim that is moot may nonetheless be considered by the court if it is “capable of
repetition, yet evading review.” Fed. Election Comm’n v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449,
462 (2007). This exception is limited. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F. 3d 281, 289 (1983). “In
the absence of a class action, the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ doctrine [is] limited
to the situation where two elements combined: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too
short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable
expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.”
Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975).
The evidence presented in this case establishes that Valdez’s sanctions have been lifted;
the misconduct charge has been expunged and the good time credit has been restored. There is
2
no likelihood of repetition with regard to this incident, and no further remedy remains to be
fashioned by this court.2 Accordingly, the Petition shall be dismissed as moot by separate Order
which follows.
Date:
2
August 19, 2014
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
Given this outcome, Valdez’s Motion to alter the time for Respondent to respond (ECF No. 3) shall be denied.
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?