Muraina v. Rardin

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 8 MOTION to Expedite, DISMISSING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Bamidele Muraina and DENYING Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (EVra)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BAMIDELE MURIANA, #73257-019,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-10977
HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

v.
ERIC RARDIN,
Respondent.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION
AND DENYING MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
I.

Introduction

This is a pro se habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241.

In his habeas petition,

federal prisoner Bamidele Muriana (APetitioner@) challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding that
resulted in a finding of guilt for possession of a cell phone and the imposition of sanctions,
including the loss of 41 days of good conduct time.

Specifically, he asserts that the decision was

not supported by sufficient evidence, that the incident report was delivered to him two days late,
and that his due process rights were violated during the hearing. He seeks to have the incident
expunged from his record and to lift all sanctions, including the loss of good conduct time.

ECF

No. 1. Respondent filed an answer to the habeas petition contending that it should be denied for
lack of merit.

ECF No. 6.

for expedited consideration.

Petitioner filed a reply to that answer, ECF No. 7, as well as a motion
ECF No. 8.

At the time he instituted this action, Petitioner was confined at the Federal Correctional
Institutional in Milan, Michigan (“FCI Milan”). He has since been released from custody. See

BOP Inmate Locator, https://www/bop.gov/inmateloc/ (stating that Petitioner is not in BOP
custody with an unknown release date, accessed on Nov. 18, 2024).
the Court with updated contact information.

Petitioner has not provided

For the reasons stated herein, the Court concludes

that habeas petition must be denied.
II.

Discussion

A.

Mootness

First, the habeas petition must be dismissed because it has become moot. 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 plaintiff or petitioner Amust 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 after 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 becomes moot when the controversy between the parties is no longer alive because the party
seeking relief has obtained the relief requested. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988);
Thomas Sysco Food Svs. v. Martin, 983 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir. 1993); Picron-Peron v. Rison, 930
F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas claim is moot when the court no longer has power to grant
the requested relief).
A court may raise the jurisdictional issue of mootness sua sponte. See North Carolina v.
Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (AMootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court is not
2

empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions....@); Berger v. Cuyahoga Co. Bar
Ass=n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1993) (AQuestions of jurisdiction are fundamental matters which
[a court] may review sua sponte.@).
As discussed, Petitioner is no longer in BOP custody.

Because Petitioner has been

released from prison, the present case has become moot. There is no further meaningful relief
for the Court to grant to grant him. The habeas petition must be dismissed as moot.
B.

Failure to Prosecute

Second, even if the case is not moot, it is subject to dismissal based upon the failure to
prosecute. Rule 11.2 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan authorizes the Court
to dismiss a case based upon a party=s failure to keep the Court apprised of address changes and
updated contact information.

The rule states:

Every attorney and every party not represented by an attorney must include his or
her contact information consisting of his or her address, e-mail address, and
telephone number on the first paper that person files in a case. If there is a change
in the contact information, that person promptly must file and serve a notice with
the new contact information. The failure to file promptly current contact
information may subject that person or party to appropriate sanctions, which may
include dismissal, default judgment, and costs.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 11.2.

Pro se litigants have the same obligation as an attorney to notify the court

of an address change. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988).

A>[Petitioner] has

the duty to inform the court of any address changes,= and it is not incumbent upon this Court or its
staff to keep track of Petitioner=s current address.@ Thompkins v. Metrish, No. 2:07-CV-12; 2009
WL 2595604, *1 n. 1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2009) (quoting Kelly v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 7:07-CV0089; 2007 WL 2847068, *1 (N.D. N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007)).
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a federal court to dismiss a
3

case based upon the Afailure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order
of the court . . .@, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and Rule 41.2 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of
Michigan authorizes the court to dismiss a case Awhen it appears that . . . the parties have taken no
action for a reasonable time.@ E.D. Mich. L.R. 41.2.

The Court may dismiss a civil action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to those rules. See Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 261 F.3d 586, 589
(6th Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
Petitioner has a duty to provide the Court with his current address or risk dismissal of his
case.

Watsy v. Richards, No. 86-1856, 1987 WL 37151 (6th Cir. April 20, 1987). Petitioner

has not provided the Court with updated contact information since he was released from custody.
He has thus failed to comply with the foregoing rules and his case is subject to dismissal.

See,

e.g., White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App=x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of
complaint for want of prosecution based upon failure to provide current address); Harkleroad v.
Astrue, No. 4:03-CV-15, 2011 WL 3627161, *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2011) (AIndeed, dismissal
for failure to prosecute may be appropriate when a pro se plaintiff fails to keep the court apprised
of her current address.@); Brown v. White, No. 2:09-CV-12902, 2010 WL 1780954, *1 (E.D. Mich.
Apr. 30, 2010) (dismissing habeas case based on failure to provide current contact information and
failure to exhaust state remedies).

The habeas petition must also be dismissed for failure to

prosecute.
C.

Merits

Lastly, even if the case is not moot and is not subject to dismissal based on the failure to
prosecute, it must nonetheless be dismissed for lack of merit.

As explained by Respondent, the

disciplinary hearing officer=s decision was supported by Asome evidence@ of guilt as required by
4

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), including the corrections officer=s report, the
photographic evidence, the FBI=s declination, and the chain of custody form.
PageID.64-65.

ECF No. 6,

The short delay in delivering the incident report does not warrant habeas relief

and did not hinder Petitioner=s defense to the charge. Id. at PageID.66-68.

And Petitioner=s due

process rights were not violated at the disciplinary hearing because he was given all the process
that he was due under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Id. at PageID.68-69. Petitioner
fails to show that he is entitled to relief on his claims.

The habeas petition must therefore be

denied.
III.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that this case must be dismissed as moot, for
failure to prosecute, and/or on the merits.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH

PREJUDICE the habeas petition. Given this determination, the Court also DENIES the motion
for expedited consideration.
Before Petitioner may appeal, a certificate of appealability (ACOA@) must issue. See 28
U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(1)(a); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A COA may issue only if the petitioner makes Aa
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(2).

When a

federal court denies habeas relief on the merits, the substantial showing threshold is met if the
petitioner demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the court=s assessment of the
constitutional claim debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-485 (2000).

When a federal court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds, a COA should issue if it is shown
that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petitioner states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right, and would find it debatable whether the court was correct in its
5

procedural ruling.

Id. Petitioner makes no such showing.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES a

COA.
Lastly, the Court concludes that an appeal from this decision cannot be taken in good faith.
See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
pauperis on appeal.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner leave to proceed in forma

This case is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox__________________
SEAN F. COX
United States District Judge
Dated:

November 26, 2024

6