Louis v. Ask-Carlson

Filing 18

ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the court denies petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as moot. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal from t his judgment would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment accordingly, to close this case, and to a serve a copy of this order along with the judgment upon petitioner and note service on the docket. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/9/2014. (Alagesan, Deepa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------- X
CARLTON LOUIS,

NOT FOR PRINT OR
ELECTRONIC
PUBLICATION

Petitioner,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WARDEN K-ASK CARLSON,

14-CV-3126 (KAM)

Respondent.
--------------------------------------- X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On May 8, 2014, pro se petitioner Carlton Louis
(“petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging disciplinary action
taken against him at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”)
Brooklyn for his failure to provide a urine sample within the
prescribed two-hour period.

(See generally ECF No. 1, Pet. for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus dated 5/8/14 (“Pet.”).)

Petitioner

alleges that the sanctions imposed after his hearing violate his
constitutional rights because he was not afforded certain
procedural rights at his hearing and the sanctions imposed were
overly harsh.

(See id. at 1-5.)

Petitioner seeks the reversal

and expungment of the sanctions he received at the hearing.
(See id. at 6.)
On October 17, 2013, petitioner was charged with a
violation of Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Code 110, Refusing to

Provide a Urine Sample, and was placed in administrative
detention pending further investigation of the violation.
Exs. A-B.)

(Id.

A hearing was held on October 28, 2013, at which the

Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) found that petitioner
violated BOP Code 110 and sanctioned petitioner with loss of 40
days of good conduct time, 120 days in disciplinary segregation,
and loss of one year of visiting and commissary privileges,
followed by an additional year of visits from only immediate
family.

(Pet. Ex. C.)

Petitioner appealed his decision to the

BOP Central Office after his appeal was denied by the Northeast
Regional Director.

(Pet. at 2-4, Ex. D.)

However, petitioner’s

administrative appeal to the BOP Central Office was still
outstanding at the time his petition was filed.

(Pet. at 4.)

On July 17, 2014, the BOP Central Office granted in
part petitioner’s administrative appeal and remanded the case to
the MDC for further action.

(ECF No. 11-1, Decl. of Nicole

McFarland dated 7/18/14, ¶ 11, Ex. 1.)

Respondent, in response

to the court’s order to show cause, requested that the petition
be denied as moot because petitioner’s claims arose out of his
initial disciplinary hearing.

(See ECF No. 11, Gov’t Response

to Order to Show Cause dated 7/18/14.)

On July 30, 2014, the

court denied respondent’s request without prejudice absent any
indication that petitioner’s sanctions had been reversed and
expunged or, alternatively, a new hearing had been granted.

2

(Electronic Order dated 7/30/14.)

Petitioner filed additional

submissions on August 1 and August 15, 2014, requesting that the
court (1) grant his petition and order respondent to reverse and
expunge his sanctions and (2) grant injunctive relief
(specifically, enjoining the BOP from conducting a new hearing
concerning petitioner’s infraction).

(See ECF Nos. 14-15.)

On August 29, 2014, respondent renewed her request
that the court deny Mr. Louis’s petition as moot after a new
hearing had been granted to petitioner.

(See ECF No. 16; see

also ECF No 16-1, Decl. of Nicole McFarland (“Farland Decl.”)
dated 8/28/14.)

The rehearing process is underway and efforts

have been made to provide petitioner with access to his
requested staff representative and witnesses.

(See Farland

Decl. ¶ 3.)
Based on respondent’s representation that petitioner
has been granted a new hearing at which he will have access to a
staff representative and be able to call witnesses, the court
now finds that the petition must be dismissed.

As respondent

correctly notes, a new hearing properly addresses petitioner’s
claims.

See Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 31 (2d

Cir. 1991) (directing the district court to order the
expungement of penalties imposed on petitioner at disciplinary
hearing where he was denied his right to call witnesses, unless
a new hearing was held at which petitioner was permitted to call

3

witnesses).

Petitioner seeks an order from this court reversing

and expunging the sanctions received after his initial hearing.
Petitioner’s case has been remanded to the MDC and a new hearing
is being held.

As a result, petitioner is no longer subject to

the outcome of the October 17, 2013 disciplinary hearing.

Thus,

his petition for relief, which alleges constitutional violations
in connection with that hearing, is moot.

See, e.g., Orozco-

Carrazco v. Longley, Civ. No. 11-41, 2011 WL 7006618, at *4-5
(W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2011), adopted by Civ. No. 11-41, 2012 WL
112986 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2012).

4

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies
petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 as moot.

The court certifies pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal from this judgment would not be
taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is
denied for the purpose of any appeal.
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

See Coppedge v. United
The Clerk of the Court is

respectfully requested to enter judgment accordingly, to close
this case, and to a serve a copy of this order along with the
judgment upon petitioner and note service on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 9, 2014
Brooklyn, New York

/s/
________
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

5