Helfferich v. Jablonski et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth. Show Cause Response due by 10/19/2020. (ceo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

JA’WAYNE HELFFERICH,
Petitioner,
v.

Civ. No. 18-33 WJ/GBW

DAVID JABLONSKI and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Petitioner Ja’Wayne Helfferich
seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The record, however,
reflects he has been released from custody. Docs. 10, 13. This raises the possibility that
Petitioner’s habeas petition is moot and should be dismissed for lack of a present case
or controversy.
A petitioner’s release from custody may render their petition moot because it no
longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution. Spencer
v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1998). “This 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.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank
Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477–78 (1990) (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)).
1

See also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). A petitioner “must have suffered, or
be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477 (citations omitted).
An incarcerated prisoner’s challenge to the validity of his conviction always
satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, because incarceration (or restrictions
imposed by the terms of the parole) constitutes a concrete injury caused by the
conviction and redressable by its invalidation. Once the prisoner's sentence has expired,
however, some concrete 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. See, e.g., Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237–38 (1968). See also Sibron v.
New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55–56 (1968).
In this case, Petitioner filed his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the statute
for a person in state custody. Doc. 1. In his petition, Petitioner stated that he was
incarcerated and serving his sentence in the New Mexico Department of Corrections
and challenged his conviction and sentence in New Mexico state cause No. D-1215-CR2016-00859. Doc. 1 at 1.
Petitioner, however, no longer appears to be in state custody. On October 30,
2018, he filed a Notice of Change of Address, which listed his address on 4th Street, NW,
in Albuquerque. Doc. 10. On April 3, 2019, Petitioner filed a second Notice of Change
of Address, which listed his address as an apartment complex at 810 Bellamah Ave.
2

NW, Apt. #5, in Albuquerque. Doc. 13. The records of the New Mexico Department of
Corrections also indicate that Petitioner has been released from its custody.
If Petitioner is no longer in state custody, there may no longer be any case or
controversy that can be remedied through a § 2254 proceeding. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523
U.S. at 7–8. Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS Petitioner to show cause, within 30
days of entry of this Order, as to why this case should not be dismissed as moot. If
Petitioner does not respond and show cause within 30 days, this case will be dismissed
without further notice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from entry of this
Order, Petitioner Ja’Wayne Helfferich shall show cause as to why this action should not
be dismissed as moot based on lack of a present case or controversy under Article III, §
2, of the Constitution.

____________________________________
GREGORY B. WORMUTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3