PENN v. ZICKEFOOSE
Filing
15
OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 10/28/2014. (TH, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
DAMON PENN,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Civ. No. 12-2319 (RBK)
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
DONNA ZICKEFOOSE,
:
:
Respondent.
:
_________________________________________ :
ROBERT B. KUGLER, U.S.D.J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner is a former federal prisoner who was previously incarcerated at F.C.I. Fort Dix
in Fort Dix, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner requests the restoration of forty days of good time
credits as such time was taken away from him as a result of a prison disciplinary proceeding.
For the following reasons, the habeas petition shall be denied as moot.
II.
BACKGROUND
While in prison, petitioner was charged in a prison disciplinary proceeding of possessing
narcotics. A prison disciplinary hearing was conducted and petitioner lost forty days of good
time credits. He argues that his due process rights were violated during the course of the
proceeding in violation of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Respondent filed an answer
to the habeas petition and respondent filed a reply.
After the matter was fully briefed, on March 5, 2014, petitioner was release from federal
prison. See http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited on October 27, 2014); see also Walsh v.
Zickefoose, No. 12-3961, 2013 WL 504600, at *6 (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2013) (taking judicial notice of
1
federal prisoner’s projected release date from inmate locator website); Obi v. Hogsten, NO. 052531, 2006 WL 42175, at *1 n.2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2006) (taking judicial notice of prisoner’s
release date from Bureau of Prisons’ inmate locator website). On October 3, 2014, the Court
issued an order to show cause on petitioner why his habeas petition should not be dismissed as
moot in light of his release from federal prison. Petitioner has not responded to the order to
show cause. 1
III.
DISCUSSION
At the outset, it is worth noting that the issue of whether petitioner’s habeas petition is
moot was raised by the Court sua sponte. See Chong v. Dist. Dir., Immigration & Naturalization
Serv., 264 F.3d 378, 383 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Although the parties did not raise the case or
controversy issue in their original briefs, we must resolve the issue because it implicates our
jurisdiction.”) (citing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531, 537 (1978); Rogin
v. Bensalem Twp., 616 F.2d 680, 684 (3d Cir. 1980)); Paz v. Zickefoose, No. 12-2114, 2013 WL
5973188, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 8, 2013) (“A court may dismiss a case sua sponte on grounds of
mootness.”) (citing New Jersey Tpk. Auth. v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light, 772 F.2d 25, 30 (3d
Cir. 1985)). As the Third Circuit has noted:
Under Article III of the Constitution, a federal court may
adjudicate “only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v.
Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “To invoke the
jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be
threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and
likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. (citing
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750-51 (1984); Valley Forge
Christian Coll. v. Americans United For Separation of Church &
1
The order to show cause was returned to the Court as undeliverable on petitioner. After his
release from federal prison on March 5, 2014, petitioner did not file a notice of a change of
address with the Court despite the local rule that requires him to do so. See L.Civ.R. 10.1(a)
(“[U]represented parties must advise the Court of any change in their . . . address within seven
days of being apprised of such a change by filing a notice of said change with the Clerk. Failure
to file a notice of address change may result in the imposition of sanctions by the Court.”).
2
State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-73 (1982)). Article III denies the
District Court the power to decide questions that cannot affect the
rights of litigants before it, and confines it to resolving live
controversies “admitting of specific relief through a decree of
conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising
what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Aetna
Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241 (1937).
The case or controversy requirement continues through all stages
of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate, and requires
that parties have a personal stake in the outcome. Lewis, 494 U.S.
at 477-78. “This means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff
‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury
traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.’” Spencer [v. Kemma], 523 U.S. [1,] 7 [(1998))]
(quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). Incarceration satisfies the case
or controversy requirement; it is a concrete injury caused by a
conviction and likely to be redressed by invalidation of the
conviction. Id. Once a sentence has expired, however, some
continuing injury, also referred to as a collateral consequence,
must exist for the action to continue. Id.
Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
“Good time credits affect the timing of an inmate’s conditional release from prison, but
they do not alter the sentence itself.” See Scott v. Schuykill FCI, 298 F. App’x 202, 204 (3d Cir.
2008) (per curiam). Thus, once petitioner was released from prison on March 5, 2014, his good
time credits ceased to have any effect and his petition seeking the restoration of good time credits
was rendered moot. See id.; see also Russell v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 13-2601, 2014 WL
2450895, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 29, 2014) (release from prison mooted petitioner’s habeas petition
seeking restoration of good time credits). Additionally, petitioner failed to present to the Court
any potential collateral consequences that remain from the revocation of forty days of his good
time credits while incarcerated, despite being given the opportunity to do so. See Scott v. Holt,
297 F. App’x 154, 156 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“Because [petitioner] served his complete
3
term of imprisonment, [he] cannot show some concrete and continuing injury from the loss of
good time credits.”). Accordingly, the petition will be denied as moot.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the habeas petition will be denied as moot. An appropriate
order will be entered.
DATED: October 28, 2014
s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?