VanderMolen v. Horn

Filing 3

OPINION; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (elam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
KURTIS JAMES VANDERMOLEN,
Petitioner,

Case No. 1:24-cv-1323

v.

Honorable Robert J. Jonker

GAYLE HORN,
Respondent.

____________________________/
OPINION
On December 17, 2024, Petitioner Kurtis James VanderMolen filed this habeas corpus
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (§ 2241 Pet., ECF No. 1.) A court must promptly order an
answer or grant the writ under § 2241, “unless it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. After undertaking the review required
by § 2243, the Court concludes that the petition is properly dismissed as moot.
Discussion
On December 15, 2022, Petitioner appeared before the undersigned and pleaded guilty,
pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1344(2), and one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. See Plea
Agreement, United States v. VanderMolen, No. 1:22-cr-171 (W.D. Mich.) (ECF No. 3). On June
5, 2023, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 30 months’ incarceration, to be followed by 3 years of
supervised release. See J., id. (ECF No. 39).
When Petitioner initiated this § 2241 action on December 17, 2024, he was confined in the
Community Alternatives Program, a halfway house in Grand Rapids, Michigan. (See § 2241 Pet.,

ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner challenges the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)’s
calculation of his sentence. (Id., PageID.6.) According to Petitioner, the amount of credit that he
should have received toward his sentence would have resulted in his release as of December 6,
2024. (Id.) Instead, he avers, the BOP falsely imprisoned him from December 6, 2024, through
December 23, 2024, the date on which Petitioner indicates he was scheduled to be released. (Id.)
Petitioner goes on to indicate that he was unable to file his § 2241 petition until December 17,
2024, because Respondent repeatedly would not give him a pass to travel to this Court until that
date. (Id.) Petitioner seeks immediate release “by way of order granting writ of habeas corpus and
any further relief the Court deems in this matter.” (Id., PageID.7.) According to the BOP’s inmate
locator,

Petitioner

was

released

from

custody

on

December

23,

2024.

See

https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp (enter “Kurtis” for “First Name,” enter
“VanderMolen” for “Last Name,” then select “Search”) (last visited Jan. 2, 2025).
Given Petitioner’s release from custody, the Court must determine whether it still has
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any case
that has “lost its character as a present, live controversy”; instead, any such case is rendered moot.
See Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969). “Because the exercise of judicial power under Article
III of the Constitution depends on the existence of a live case or controversy, mootness is a
jurisdictional question.” Demis v. Sniezak, 558 F.3d 508, 512 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Lewis v. Cont’l
Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)).
A prisoner’s “challenge to the validity of his conviction [or sentence] always satisfies the
case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration . . . constitutes a concrete injury,
caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction [or sentence].” Spencer
v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Once a prisoner’s sentence has expired, however, “some concrete

2

and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole—some ‘collateral
consequence’ of the conviction—must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. “[I]t is not enough
that a dispute was alive when [Petitioner’s] habeas corpus petition was filed in [this Court].
[Petitioner] must continue to have an actual injury that is capable of being redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.” Brock v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 256 F. App’x 748, 750 (6th Cir. 2007).
As noted above, Petitioner filed his § 2241 petition on December 17, 2024, less than a week
before his scheduled release. At that time, Petitioner was still in custody, and, therefore, the Court
had jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s request for release. However, Petitioner was released from
custody on December 23, 2024, and is now serving his 3-year term of supervised release. As noted
above, Petitioner challenges the execution of his sentence in his § 2241 petition, claiming that the
BOP did not properly calculate credit that Petitioner was due under the First Step Act and that if
he had received that credit, he would have been released as of December 6, 2024. Petitioner seeks
release and any other relief that the Court deems appropriate.
In light of Petitioner’s release, the Court cannot provide any further relief to Petitioner, and
his § 2241 petition is moot. Even if Petitioner were entitled to the credit he asserts and earlier
release as of December 6, 2024, the only potential consequence that exists following his release is
the delayed start of his 3-year term of supervised release. However, “[t]he Supreme Court has
made clear that excessive time served in prison does not automatically reduce a defendant’s period
of supervised release.” See United States v. Perotti, 702 F. App’x 322, 324 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing
United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 60 (2000)); see also Williams v. Sherman, 214 F. App’x
264, 265 (3d Cir. 2007) (noting that “[a] delayed commencement of supervised release due to an
alleged wrongful calculation of good-conduct time cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision”). Simply put, Petitioner’s 3-year term of supervised release “cannot be reduced ‘by

3

reason of any excess time [he may have] served in prison.’” DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439,
442 n.3 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson, 529 U.S. at 60).
In light of the foregoing, Petitioner does not “continue to have an actual injury that is
capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Brock, 256 F. App’x at 750.
Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, and the petition will be
dismissed as moot.
Conclusion
The Court will enter a judgment dismissing the petition as moot. In § 2241 cases filed by
federal detainees and prisoners; the Court need not address whether to grant a certificate of
appealability. Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2004).

Dated: January 6, 2025

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
Robert J. Jonker
United States District Judge

4