Raleigh v. Terris

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM RALEIGH, #11120-041,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 13-cv-10059
HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

v.
J.A. TERRIS,
Respondent.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
I.

Introduction
This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. William Raleigh (“petitioner”),

a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan (“FCI-Milan”), Michigan
when he filed his habeas petition, challenges a decision by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to deny
him early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) for participation in a drug treatment program due to a
1984 Minnesota conviction for third-degree assault. After he instituted this action, the petitioner
was transferred to Minnesota. The court has now learned that the petitioner was released from
federal

custody

on

February

19,

2015.

See

BOP

Prisoner

Locator,

http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/william raleigh. Consequently, and for the reasons stated herein, the
court finds that this case has been rendered moot and the habeas petition must be denied.
II.

Facts and Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and was
sentenced to 150 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release in 2004. While
incarcerated at FCI-Milan, the petitioner was notified that while he could participate in the BOP’s

Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”), his prior state conviction for third-degree assault was
considered a crime of violence and he would not be eligible for an early release benefit under 18
U.S.C. § 3621(e) (which gives the BOP discretion to reduce an inmate’s sentence by up to one year
upon successful completion of the RDAP). He nonetheless entered such a drug treatment program
in 2011 and completed the unit-based portion of the program in 2012.
The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the BOP’s decision to deny him an early release
benefit through the administrative process. He then filed his federal habeas petition raising the
following claims: (1) the BOP erred in finding that his previous conviction for third-degree assault
was an aggravated offense under 28 C.F.R. 550.55(b)(4)(iv); (2) the BOP erred in considering his
previous conviction for third-degree assault when the conviction was not counted for the purposes
of his PSR and there was no proof that he was afforded counsel; and (3) the BOP violated the
Administrative Procedures Act when it promulgated 28 C.F.R. 550.55 by failing to cite any rationale
for how it would consider stale, un-counseled convictions. The petitioner seeks appropriate
equitable relief. The respondent filed an answer to the petition contending that it should be denied
for lack of merit. The petitioner was subsequently released from custody.
III.

Analysis
Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution requires the existence of a case or

controversy through all stages of federal judicial proceedings. United States v. Juvenile Male, _ U.S.
_, 131 S. Ct. 2860, 2864 (2011). This means that, throughout the litigation, the petitioner “must
have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
(1990); see also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). If an event occurs subsequent to the
filing of a lawsuit which deprives a court of the ability to provide meaningful relief, the case

2

becomes moot and is subject to dismissal. Ailor v. City of Maynardville, 368 F.3d 587, 596 (6th Cir.
2004). Similarly, a claim for habeas relief becomes moot when the controversy between the parties
is no longer alive because the party seeking relief has obtained the relief requested. See, e.g.,
Picron-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (a claim is moot when the court no longer
has power to grant the requested relief); Johnson v. Riveland, 855 F.2d 1477, 1479-80 (10th Cir.
1998). A court may raise the jurisdictional issue of mootness sua sponte. See North Carolina v.
Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (“Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court is not
empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions....”); Berger v. Cuyahoga Co. Bar
Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1993) (“Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental matters which
[a court] may review sua sponte.”).
As noted, the BOP’s Inmate Locator database indicates that the petitioner was released from
federal custody on February 19, 2015. Because the petitioner has been released from custody, the
Court can no longer grant him further relief on the claims contained in his petition. The present case
has thus been rendered moot and the habeas petition must be denied on that basis.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that there is no longer any case or controversy

for the Court to resolve in this matter. Accordingly, the Court denies and dismisses as moot the
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
SO ORDERED.

S/Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 26, 2015

3