Jones v. Terris

Filing 8

OPINION & ORDER Granting Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 6 ) Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVIE JONES,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:17-cv-12323
v.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
J.A. TERRIS,
Respondent.
_________________________________/
OPINION & ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(Dkt. 6)
This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Stevie Jones,

(“Petitioner”), was a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan
when he filed his habeas petition on July 14, 2017.

Petitioner challenges a determination by the

Bureau of Prisons to place him in a residential reentry center for a period of only three months.
Petitioner contends that the decision to delay his placement violates his First Amendment rights
because it was made in retaliation for appealing an earlier decision by the Bureau of Prisons.
Though he does not say so explicitly, Petitioner appears to request immediate placement in a
residential reentry center.
On or about October 3, 2017, Petitioner was placed in the Detroit Residential Reentry
Program, and he was released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons on December 29, 2017,
see Suggestion of Mootness Due to Petitioner’s Release (Dkt. 7).

Respondent filed a motion to

dismiss the petition on the grounds that Petitioner’s placement in the residential reentry program
moots his petition.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that this case has been

rendered moot and dismisses the habeas petition.
1

I. DISCUSSION
Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution requires the existence of a case or
controversy through all stages of federal judicial proceedings. 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 becomes moot and is subject to dismissal.
Maynardville, 368 F.3d 587, 596 (6th Cir. 2004).

Ailor v. City of

Similarly, a claim for habeas relief becomes

moot when the controversy between the parties is no longer live because the party seeking relief
has obtained the relief requested. See, e.g., Johnson v. Riveland, 855 F.2d 1477, 1479-1480
(10th Cir. 1998).
As noted, Petitioner has already been placed in a residential reentry center – the relief he
requests in his petition. Because Petitioner has obtained the requested relief, the case has been
rendered moot and the habeas petition must be dismissed on that basis.
II. 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.

The case has been rendered moot.

Accordingly, the

Court dismisses with prejudice the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2018
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail
addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 16, 2018.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager

2