MARIN v. FORT DIX COMPANY et al
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/23/2016. (dmr)(n.m.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
No. 15-7968 (JBS)
WARDEN OF FCI FORT DIX,
Fabio Marin, Petitioner Pro Se
FCI Fort Dix
PO Box 2000
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640
Irene Dowdy, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
401 Market Street, Fourth Floor
PO Box 2098
Camden, New Jersey 08101
Attorney for Respondent Warden of FCI Fort Dix
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
Fabio Marin, a federal prisoner confined at FCI Fort Dix filed
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
alleging the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly denied him good
time credits. (Amended Petition, Docket Entry 4). Having reviewed
the written submissions of the parties, and for the reasons
expressed below, this Court will dismiss the petition as moot.
Petitioner, a citizen of Columbia, was sentenced by the
Southern District of New York to a custodial term of 120 months
followed by a five-year period of supervised release. United States
v. Fabio Alonso Marin Dugue, No. 07-cr-197-03 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5,
2008); (Amended Petition ¶ 1). According to Petitioner, he is
subject to deportation upon the conclusion of his custodial term.
(Amended Petition ¶ 1).1
He alleges that in August 2015, the BOP
informed him he will not “receive any good time days and will lose
most of what he now possess [sic] unless [he] learns to speak
English and/or attend classes to learn to speak English unless [he]
can provide ‘a valid reason & [it is] Documented stating [he]
cannot participate in the English teaching program[.]’” (Id. ¶ 3
(emphasis in original)). He asserts he was supposed to be eligible
for release in November 2015 or February 2016 at the latest. (Id. ¶
Petitioner filed this petition on November 9, 2015, asking the
Court to order the BOP to provide a justification for requiring him
to learn English in order to be eligible for good time credits and
to restore any lost good time credits. (Docket Entry 1). The Court
Respondent admits an ICE detainer has been entered, but denies a
final order of removal has been issued. (Answer, Docket Entry 5 ¶
1). In any event, the petition does not concern Petitioner’s
2 At the time Respondent was ordered to answer the petition, the BOP
had calculated Petitioner’s projected release date to be May 17,
2016. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2, Docket Entry 5-3)
administratively terminated the petition as Petitioner had not paid
the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Docket Entry 2). The Clerk’s Office received the filing
fee on December 17, 2015, and the matter was reopened for judicial
On December 22, 2015, the Clerk’s Office received another
petition and filing fee from Petitioner. See Marin v. Fort Dix Co.,
No. 15-8827 (D.N.J. filed Dec. 22, 2015). As the new petition
raised the same claims as his previous one, the Court ordered the
new petition to be filed in this action as an amended petition and
for the new action to be closed. (Docket Entry 3). The Court then
ordered Respondent to answer within 14 days. (Id.). Petitioner was
informed he could respond to the answer if he so chose within 7
days of receiving the answer. (Id.).
Respondent filed its answer on January 26, 2016. (Answer,
Docket Entry 5). It conceded the BOP had erred in the calculation
of Petitioner’s good time credits and release date. According to
Respondent, “Marin previously had been credited with earning 42
days of [good time credits] per year, rather than the maximum
amount of 54 days of [good time credits] for each year served.”
(Id. at 6 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)). Upon discovery of the
error, the BOP recalculated Petitioner’s sentence for a new
projected release date of February 14, 2016. (Respondent’s Exhibit
3, Docket Entry 5-4).
Subsequently, by letter dated February 22,
2016, the government confirmed that Petitioner was released on
February 12, 2016 from BOP custody.
[Docket Item No.6].
the Court to dismiss the petition as moot or, in the alternative,
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner did not
file a traverse.
Section 2241 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides in
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner
unless ... He is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “Section 2241 is the only statute that
confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal
prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of
his sentence.” Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485–86 (3d Cir.
2001). In this action, Petitioner challenges the BOP’s calculation
of his good time credits. If the BOP incorrectly determined his
eligibility for early release, the error carries a potential for a
miscarriage of justice that can be corrected through habeas corpus.
See Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241–44 (3d
Cir. 2005); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478–79 (3d Cir. 1990).
The exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence of a
case or controversy because Article III of the Constitution limits
the judicial power of federal courts to “cases or controversies”
between parties. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. “The ‘case or
controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal
judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. . . . The parties must
continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.’”
Chestnut v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 592 F. App'x 112, 113 (3d Cir.
2015) (omission in original) (quoting Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp.,
494 U.S. 472, 477–78 (1990)). “‘[T]hroughout the litigation,’ the
party seeking relief ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an
actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed
by a favorable judicial decision.’” United States v. Juvenile Male,
131 S. Ct. 2860, 2864 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)).
Here, Petitioner asks this Court to compel the BOP to justify
the denial of good time credits and to order it to award him the
good time credits to which he believes he is entitled. Respondent
has conceded that the BOP improperly calculated the amount of
credits Petitioner earned during his incarceration and that the
date of his release was incorrect. The BOP has corrected this error
and awarded Petitioner the maximum amount of credits that is
permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1), 54 days per year served.
It has recalculated Petitioner’s projected release date to be
February 14, 2016, (Exhibit 3), which is the date reflected on the
BOP’s inmate locator. BOP Inmate Locator, available at
http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited February 4, 2016). The
release has actually occurred on February 12, 2016, as noted above.
Petitioner has already received all the relief this Court
could have ordered if it had granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The
BOP’s recalculation of Petitioner’s sentence renders the petition
moot because Petitioner is no longer threatened with “an actual
injury traceable to the [BOP] and likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7; see also
Wilson v. Reilly, 163 F. App'x 122, 125 (3d Cir. 2006) (When the
Parole Board provided habeas petitioner with the relief sought in
his § 2241 petition, this rendered his habeas claim moot). The
Court will therefore dismiss the Petition as moot.3
Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss the Petition as
moot. An accompanying Order will be entered.
February 23, 2016
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
As the petition is being dismissed as moot, it is unnecessary to
address Respondent’s alternative argument that Petitioner failed to
exhaust administrative remedies.
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?