Newton v. Barnes

Filing 9

ORDER DECLINING TO ACCEPT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: the Court DECLINES TO ACCEPT the Report and Recommendation 8 because the case has become moot; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED as moot; and the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Eric C. Tostrud on 7/1/2019. (RMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Michelle C. Newton,

File No. 19-cv-1037 (ECT/ECW)

Petitioner,
v.
Warden Nanette Barnes,

ORDER REJECTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
AS MOOT

Respondent.
________________________________________________________________________
The Court has received the June 3, 2019 Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. ECF No. 8. No party has objected to
that Report and Recommendation, and the Court therefore reviews it for clear error. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
That review reveals, since the time Magistrate Judge Wright issued the recommendation
that Newton’s habeas petition be dismissed, Newton’s petition has become moot. Her
petition alleges that she was scheduled to be released on June 21, 2019, Pet. at 2 [ECF
No. 1]. The Bureau of Prisons maintains an Inmate Locator search tool on its website, see
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited July 1, 2019), and that tool reveals that
Newton indeed was released as scheduled.
The United States Constitution limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal
courts to ongoing cases and controversies. See U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “[A]n actual
[case or] controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all
stages of the litigation.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). “When . . . the issues presented in a case lose their life
because of the passage of time or a change in circumstances . . . and a federal court can no
longer grant effective relief, the case is considered moot.” Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722,
723 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000)). If an
action is moot because it no longer satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, a federal
court “ha[s] no discretion and must dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.” Ali,
419 F.3d at 724 (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 n.7 (1969)). There are
four exceptions, however. If any of the following exceptions apply, a court should not
dismiss a habeas petition as moot:
(1) secondary or ‘collateral’ injuries survive after resolution of
the primary injury; (2) the issue is deemed a wrong capable of
repetition yet evading review; (3) the defendant voluntarily
ceases an allegedly illegal practice but is free to resume it at
any time; or (4) it is a properly certified class action suit.
Ahmed v. Sessions, No. 16-cv-02124 (DSD/HB), 2017 WL 3267738, at *2 (D. Minn. July
11, 2017) (citation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 3268176 (D.
Minn. July 31, 2017).
None of those exceptions apply here. No collateral consequences survive Newton’s
allegedly unlawful detention. Her habeas petition challenges only the length of her
imprisonment, which has now ended. Neither the second nor third exceptions apply, either.
If Newton were imprisoned again—for example, if she were arrested, convicted, and
sentenced on new charges—any habeas relief she might seek at that time would be based
on new facts and circumstances surrounding a new detention. Finally, this is not a class

2

action. Accordingly, Newton’s habeas petition is moot, and the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over it.
Therefore, based on all of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned
matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
was Finding no clear error, and based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings
in the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Court DECLINES TO ACCEPT the Report and Recommendation

[ECF No. 8] because the case has become moot;
2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot;

3.

The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of

and

subject-matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: July 1, 2019

s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court

3