Powell v. Hanson
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted. (Doc. No. 12 .) Because the Court has granted the motion to dismiss, the Court need not address respondent's motion for summary judgment. This case is closed. Judge Sara Lioi on 12/30/2016. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CASE NO. 4:15-cv-408
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
Before the Court are two motions by respondent R. Hanson (“respondent” or “Hanson”).
The first is an answer in opposition to the petition of Ivory Powell (“Powell” or “petitioner”) for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1 [“Petition”]), combined with a
motion for summary judgment on the merits of the petition. (Doc. No. 11 [“Ans. and MSJ”].)
The second is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Doc. No. 12 [“MTD”].)
For the reasons that follow, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.
In the petition, Powell argues that he is entitled to 47 days of jail and good time credit
related to his transfer from state to federal custody that should be applied to his federal sentence.
Hanson moved to dismiss,1 but the Court found that respondent had not carried his burden to
show that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and denied the motion without
Respondent has filed two motions to dismiss in this case. The motion referenced here is the first motion to dismiss,
which was previously denied. The motion now pending before the Court is the second motion to dismiss.
prejudice. (Doc. No. 9 [“MOO”].) The Court then ordered respondent to answer the petition, and
established a reply date for petitioner. (Id. at 130.2)
Respondent combined his answer to the petition with a motion for summary judgment.
Petitioner’s response was due on May 11, 2016, but he filed no response.
Petitioner was released from federal prison on July 22, 2016. (Doc. No. 12-1 (Declaration
of Alisha Gallagher [“Gallagher Dec.”]) ¶ 2.3) Hanson moved to dismiss for the second time,
arguing that the petition is moot and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is
no longer an ongoing case or controversy with respect to petitioner’s release date. (MTD at 25354.) Powell did not respond to the motion.
“Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only
actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Brock v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 256 F. App’x 748, 750
(6th Cir. 2007) (citing Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 108 L.
Ed. 2d 400 (1990)). The “case or controversy” requirement “‘subsists through all stages of
federal judicial proceedings,’ . . . it is not enough that a dispute was alive when [petitioner’s]
habeas corpus petition was filed in the district court. [The petitioner] must continue to have an
actual injury that is capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. (internal
citations omitted) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). “Because this Court’s authority is dependent
upon a live case or controversy, mootness is a jurisdictional question.” Raglin, 2012 WL 113028,
at *2 (citing Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).
All references to page numbers are to the page identification numbers generated by the Court’s electronic filing
“Mootness results when events occur during the pendency of the litigation which render
the court unable to grant the requested relief.” Brock, 256 F. App’x at 750 (citing Berger v.
Cuyahoga Cnty. Bar Assoc., 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1993)). Because Powell was released
from federal custody, no actual injury remains concerning his release date that can be redressed
by this Court. Id. (“Because Brock has already been placed in a [community corrections center],
and was then released from custody, no actual injury remains which the Court could redress with
a favorable decision in this appeal.”) (citations omitted). Powell’s release from federal custody
renders his habeas petition moot. Zomber v. Stine, No. CIV A 7:07-402-DCR, 2008 WL
1735169, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2008) (prisoner’s habeas petition challenging Bureau of
Prisons policy regarding release of inmates to a residential reentry center (“RRC”) was rendered
moot when the prisoner was released to a RRC during the habeas proceedings) (citing Brock, 256
F. App’x at 750); Winkle v. Shartle, No. 309CV2561, 2010 WL 3835049, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept.
29, 2010) (habeas petition for transfer to a community corrections center (“CCC”) rendered moot
when, during pendency of habeas proceedings, prisoner was transferred to a CCC and
subsequently released from custody). Moreover, “[a]s relates to habeas actions, a district court
lacks jurisdiction over the petition if the petitioner is not in government custody; therefore, the
individual’s release from custody generally moots a habeas petition.” Khan v. Attorney Gen. of
the United States, No. 1:15 CV 2014, 2016 WL 4004616, at *2 (N.D. Ohio May 17, 2016),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:15 CV 2014, 2016 WL 4009885 (N.D. Ohio July 25,
2016) (habeas petition rendered moot when petitioner was released from ICE’s custody during
pendency of habeas proceedings) (citing Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 633, 102 S. Ct. 1322,
The Court may take judicial notice of information on the Inmate Locator Service. See Raglin v. Farley, No. 4:11
71 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1982)).4 The Court lacks jurisdiction over Powell’s habeas petition because he
has been released from federal custody.
Because petitioner is no longer in federal custody, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his
habeas petition and, as no actual injury remains to be redressed by this Court, the petition is
moot. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.
For all of the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted. Because the
Court has granted the motion to dismiss, the Court need not address respondent’s motion for
summary judgment. This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 30, 2016
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CV2146, 2012 WL 113028, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 12, 2012) (citation omitted).
The Court can retain jurisdiction if the petitioner can establish that his injury—detention—is “capable of repetition
but evading review.” Khan, 2016 WL 4004616, at *2 (quoting Lane, 455 U.S. at 632-33). In this case, petitioner has
made no such claim.
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?