POINDEXTER v. SHARTELL et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPLIES TO BOTH ACTIONS, ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen both matters; ORDERED that Petitioner's filing docketed as Docket Entry 6 in Poindexter v. Shartel, Civil Action No. 13-7167 is construed as a submission intended for filing in Poindexter v. Shartel, Civil Action No. 13-3047; ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket Petitioner's submission (docket entry 6 in 13-7167) in 13-3047, accompanying it with docket text reading "Petitioner's Second A mended Petition" ; ORDERED that Petitioner's second amended petition in 13-3047 is dismissed under Habeas Rule 2(e), as a new and separate claim improperly filed in this matter, etc.; ORDERED that the Clerk shall close the file on both matters, etc. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 6/12/2014. (dmr)(n.m.)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
________________________________
:
DEWELL POINDEXTER,
:
: Civil Action No. 13-3047 (RMB)
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
J.T. SHARTELL et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
_______________________________________
:
:
DEWELL POINDEXTER,
:
: Civil Action No. 13-7167 (RMB)
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
J.T. SHARTELL et al.,
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
:
APPLIES TO BOTH ACTIONS
Respondents.
:
_______________________________________
:
These two matters are before the Court upon Petitioner’s
filing made in Poindexter v. Shartel, Civil Action No. 13-7167
(RMB) (“Poindexter-II,” filed Nov. 26, 2013), a § 2241 action.
Prior to commencing Poindexter-II, Petitioner commenced another §
2241 action identical to Poindexter-II.

See Poindexter v.

Shartel, Civil Action No. 13-3047 (RMB) (“Poindexter-I,” filed
May 13, 2013).

The petitions filed in Poindexter-I and

Poindexter-II offered this Court merely a handful of bold
conclusions indicating Petitioner’s interest in having the Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) credit his federal sentence with a certain
period related to his long-expired Pennsylvania state term.

Neither one of these two petitions clarified the exact period
Petitioner was seeking to credit, the legal basis for such credit
or the factual predicate underlying his claim.

Correspondingly,

this Court directed him to amend his Poindexter-I petition and
terminated Poindexter-II as duplicative.

In response, Petitioner

made a filing in the terminated Poindexter-II matter stating his
displeasure with denial of parole during his expired Pennsylvania
state sentence.1

See Poindexter-II, Docket Entry No. 6.

In

light of Petitioner’s filing, this Court examined his BOP records
and determined that Petitioner was released from federal custody
on May 13, 2014.

See http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc.

Since

Petitioner’s release from federal confinement mooted his § 2241
challenges based on the BOP execution of his federal sentence,
his Poindexter-I and Poindexter-II actions will be closed.2
IT IS, therefore, on this 12th day of June 2014,

1

Nothing was filed in Poindexter-I.

2

Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to decide an
issue unless it presents a live case or controversy as required
by Article III of the Constitution. See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna,
523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); see also Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142,
147 (3d Cir. 2009).
“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.” Burkey, 556 F.3d at 147. If developments
occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a
petitioner’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a
court from being able to grant effective relief, the case must be
dismissed as moot. See id. at 147-48; see also Blanciak v.
Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
2

ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen both above-captioned
matters by making a new and separate entry on the docket of each
mater reading, “CIVIL CASE REOPENED”; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s filing docketed as Docket Entry
No. 6 in Poindexter v. Shartel, Civil Action No. 13-7167, is
construed as a submission intended for filing in Poindexter v.
Shartel, Civil Action No. 13-3047; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket Petitioner’s submission
(docketed as Docket Entry No. 6 in Poindexter v. Shartel, Civil
Action No. 13-7167) in Poindexter v. Shartel, Civil Action No.
13-3047, accompanying it with the docket text reading,
“PETITIONER’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION”; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s second amended petition in
Poindexter v. Shartel, Civil Action No. 13-3047, is: (a)
dismissed under Habeas Rule 2(e), as a new and separate claim
improperly filed in that matter; or, alternatively (b) denied for
lack of jurisdiction, being a coram nobis application challenging
his expired Pennsylvania sentence, see Goodman v. United States,
140 F. App’x 436 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Only the court that handed down
the judgment of conviction . . . may entertain . . . a [coram
nobis] petition”); and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s § 2241 challenges in Poindexter v.
Shartel, Civil Action No. 13-3047, is dismissed as moot; and it
is further
3

ORDERED that the Clerk shall close the file on both abovecaptioned matters by making a new and separate entry on the
docket of each matter reading, “CIVIL CASE CLOSED.
WITHDRAWS ITS JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER.

THIS COURT

NO FURTHER FILINGS

SHALL BE MADE IN THIS MATTER”; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Petitioner directing its mailing to Petitioner’s
civilian address provided in Poindexter v. Shartel, Civil Action
No. 13-7167, Docket Entry No. 6, at 10, without accompanying that
address by Petitioner’s former BOP Register Number.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

4