Edwards v. Terris

Filing 9

OPINION and ORDER Granting Respondent's 8 Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (Loury, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GILBERTO EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
Case Number: 14-cv-11707
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
J.A. TERRIS,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Gilberto Edwards is confined
at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan (“FCI-Milan”). In his petition,
Edwards challenges a disciplinary conviction which resulted, inter alia, in the loss of 13days good conduct time. Respondent J.A. Terris has filed a motion to dismiss the
petition, arguing that it is now moot because the disciplinary conviction was vacated. The
Court is granting Respondent’s motion and dismissing the petition.
I. Background
Edwards is serving a 235-month sentence, imposed by the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, following a conviction for conspiracy to
import five kilograms or more of cocaine. At the time of the incident giving rise to the
disciplinary proceeding, Edwards was incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in
Schuylkill, Pennsylvania.
At 8:45 p.m. on April 8, 2013, a corrections officer observed Edwards walking on

the prison camp track with another inmate, Otis Jones. Prison officials maintain that
inmates are not authorized on the track after nightfall. The officer observed Jones run
over a hill and disappear into the woods. Edwards remained on the track, pacing back
and forth in a manner that suggested to the officer that Edwards was acting as a lookout.
Once Jones returned to the track, both inmates were searched. A cell phone and charger
were found on Jones. (See ECF No. at 1 at Pg ID 34 [Incident Report].)
Following a disciplinary proceeding, a discipline hearing officer (“DHO”) found
Edwards guilty of being in an unauthorized area, offense code 316. (Id. at Pg ID 35-37.)
Edwards was sanctioned with the loss of 13 days good conduct time, 30 days of
disciplinary segregation, forfeiture of 30 days non-vested good conduct time, and 8
months loss of telephone and visiting privileges. (Id.)
Edwards appealed the DHO’s decision to the Regional Office, contending that the
track is not designated an authorized area. The Regional Office affirmed the DHO’s
decision. (ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 30.) Edwards filed an appeal to the Central Office for
Inmate Appeals. Federal regulations provide that the BOP Central Office has forty days
in which to issue a response to an appeal. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. On September 24,
2013, the Central Office notified Edwards that additional time (until November 15, 2013)
was needed to respond to his appeal. In the interim, Edwards was transferred to FCIMilan.
On April 23, 2014, he filed the pending habeas petition. At that time, a response to
his Central Office appeal had not been issued. Edwards raises these claims in his petition:
2

(i) due process violation; (ii) improperly sanctioned with the loss of good conduct time
because he was not given fair notice that his conduct was proscribed; and (iii) prison staff
interfered with Edwards’ ability to prepare and present a defense.
On June 19, 2014, two months after Edwards filed his habeas petition, the Central
Office for Inmate Appeals issued a response to Edwards’ appeal. The Central Office
partially granted the appeal because the offense of aiding and abetting the possession of a
hazardous tool more accurately reflected the circumstances of the incident described by
the incident report. (ECF No. 8, Ex. 2.) The Central Office returned the incident report
to FCI-Milan asking that the report be re-written, the violation code changed, and a new
hearing granted. (Id.)
On September 17, 2014 the DHO conducted a rehearing. The DHO found
Edwards guilty of the new charge, aiding and abetting the possession of a hazardous tool
(a cell phone). (ECF No. 8, Ex. 4.) The DHO imposed the same sanctions imposed
following the first disciplinary hearing. (Id.)
Respondent then filed the pending motion to dismiss.
II. 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. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990); see also Preiser v.
3

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. See 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). “Mootness is a
jurisdictional question because the Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or
abstract propositions.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (internal
quotations omitted).
Respondent argues that the petition is now moot because the disciplinary
proceeding challenged in the conviction has been vacated and Edwards has been afforded
a new hearing. In the petition, Edwards requests that the Bureau of Prisons be ordered to
vacate the conviction for being in an unauthorized area, expunge the incident report, and
restore good-time conduct credit. He also requests that a new hearing be ordered
regarding the charge of being in an unauthorized area. The Central Office’s decision
provided Edwards with relief. The Central Office ordered that the incident report be
rewritten and that Edwards be afforded a new hearing. When prison officials vacate a
disciplinary conviction and order a new hearing, claims that are based on the disciplinary
conviction are rendered moot. Buhl v. Berkebile, No. 13-1420, 556 F. App’x 778, 778
4

(10th Cir. May 21, 2014).
Because the disciplinary conviction challenged in the petition has been vacated,
any injury that Edwards suffered from the first disciplinary hearing cannot be redressed
by a favorable judicial decision from this Court. Edwards’ claims have thus been
rendered moot and the Court lacks jurisdiction to address them.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus as Moot (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.
S/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 30, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, April 30, 2015, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class
mail.
S/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

5