Thelen v. Billingsley

Filing 7

OPINION AND ORDER denying 6 Motion for emergency injunctive relief. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PATRICK THELEN,
Petitioner,
v.

Case Number 2:19-CV-10182
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JAMES BILLINGSLEY,
Respondent.
_______________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION
FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 6)
Patrick Thelen, (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a disciplinary hearing conducted
by the Bureau of Prisons, in which he was found guilty of testing positive in
a urinalysis for using amphetamines and methamphetamines. This finding
resulted in the loss of 39 days credit. On February 8, 2019, this Court
summarily dismissed the petition as being duplicative of two pending
habeas petitions.
Petitioner has filed a motion for emergency injunctive relief. For the
reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Petitioner’s habeas petition was dismissed because it was duplicative
of two prior habeas actions challenging the same disciplinary conviction
-1-

and raising the same claim. See Thelen v. Terris, No. 5:18-cv-13719 (E.D.
Mich.)(Levy, J.); Thelen v. Billingsley, No. 2:19-cv-10212 (E.D.
Mich.)(Lawson, J.).
A suit is duplicative and subject to dismissal if the claims, parties, and
available relief do not significantly differ from an earlier-filed action. See,
e.g., Barapind v. Reno, 72 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999).
Petitioner’s habeas petition was dismissed because it was a duplicate
petition. See, e.g. Daniel v. Lafler, No. 06-CV-12343, 2006 WL 1547772, at
* 1 (E.D. Mich. June 1, 2006); see also Davis v. United States Parole
Comm'n, 870 F.2d 657, 1989 WL 25837, * 1 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 1989)(a
district court may dismiss a habeas petition as duplicative of a pending
habeas petition when the second petition is the same as the first petition).
Petitioner’s motion for emergency injunctive relief is denied because it is
duplicative of the other habeas petitions and the accompanying motions for
emergency injunctive relief filed in his other cases.
Petitioner’s motion is also moot because he was released from
custody on April 3, 2019. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator,
http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (select “Find By Number” tab, select “BOP
Register Number” from drop-down menu, and search number field for
“16842-039”).
-2-

“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or
controversies” under Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution.
Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). Where the requested
relief, such as release from custody, can no longer be granted, a habeas
petition is moot. See Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 512–13 (6th Cir.
2009). Petitioner’s case is now moot because there is no meaningful relief
that the Court can give him. In his petition and accompanying motion, he
requested release. The Bureau of Prisons released him from custody. His
petition is therefore moot. And because his petition is now moot, his motion
for injunctive relief is also moot.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for emergency injunctive
relief (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
Dated: July 23, 2019
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
July 23, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Patrick Thelen #16842-039, RRC Halfway House,
2209 Norman Street, Saginaw, MI 48601.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-