DETLOFF v. Terris

Filing 24

OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying 23 Motion for Termination of Supervised Release. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC) Modified on 8/8/2018 (JMcC).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT R. DETLOFF,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-13040
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

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

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING THE MOTION
FOR TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
Federal prisoner Scott R. Detloff filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the computation of his federal sentence. Specifically, Petitioner
seeks credit for time served in federal pre-trial detention from June 21, 2012 through July 16, 2014.
Following a series of transfers between courts due to changes in Petitioner’s custodial location, the
matter was recently transferred back to this Court for consideration. Respondent has since advised
the Court, and the Court has confirmed, that Petitioner completed his federal sentence and was
released from federal custody on July 16, 2018. See Petitioner’s Inmate Profile, Bureau of Prisons
Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/.
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, 564
U.S. 932, 936 (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 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 Petitioner was released from
federal custody on July 16, 2018. Because Petitioner has completed his sentence and has been
released from custody, the Court can no longer grant him relief on the sentencing claim contained
in his petition. The present case has thus been rendered moot and the habeas petition must be
dismissed on that basis. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES as moot the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.
After his release from custody, Petitioner also filed a motion for termination of supervised
release. While Petitioner seeks a new form of relief – the termination of his supervised release – his
underlying claim – a challenge to the length of his sentence – is the same. Because Petitioner’s
sentencing claim has been rendered moot by the completion of his sentence, the Court can no longer

2

grant him habeas relief. Petitioner is required to complete his term of supervised release irrespective
of when his sentence ended. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for termination of
supervised release. This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2018

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

I hereby certify that on August 8, 2018, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record via
electronic means and upon Scott R. Detloff via First Class mail at the address below:
Scott R. Detloff
1107 W. Taf t Rd.
St. Johns, MI 48879
s/J. McCoy
Case Manager

3