Perez-Cardenas v. Federal Correctional Institute Elkton

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6 ) is granted and Perez-Cardenas's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. Chief District Judge Sara Lioi on 3/12/2025. (V,A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ALEJANDRO PEREZ-CARDENAS,
PETITIONER,
vs.
WARDEN T.R. SNEIZEK,
RESPONDENT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:23-cv-1145
CHIEF JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

On June 7, 2023, petitioner Alejandro Perez-Cardenas (“Perez-Cardenas”) filed a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Respondent Warden
T.R. Sneizek (the “Warden”) moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(Doc. No. 6.) Because Perez-Cardenas has already been released from custody, the motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND
When Perez-Cardenas filed his petition, he was in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons

(“BOP”), serving a 120-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to a drug offense in the District
of Utah. (See Doc. No. 1-1, at 10; Doc. No. 1-3, at 1.) In his petition, Perez-Cardenas argues that
he was improperly denied certain time credits under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d), which
would have reduced the length of his sentence. (See Doc. No. 1, at 2, 8; Doc. No. 1-1, at 10–11.)
The Warden maintains that Perez-Cardenas was subject to a final order of removal because he had

previously entered the country illegally and was therefore ineligible for First Step Act credits.
(Doc. No. 5, at 6–10.)
On October 4, 2024, Perez-Cardenas was released from custody. (Doc. No. 6, at 1; Doc.
No. 6-1, at 2–3.)1 The Warden subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, arguing that because Perez-Cardenas “has been released from federal custody, his
petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot.” (Doc. No. 6, at 4.) Perez-Cardenas did not oppose or
otherwise respond to the motion.
II.

DISCUSSION
“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,” so “it is not enough that a dispute was alive when [a petitioner’s] habeas corpus
petition was filed[.]” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Thus, at all stages of litigation, a
petitioner “must continue to have an actual injury that is capable of being redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.” Id. Any “case that has ‘lost its character as a present, live controversy’” is
rendered moot. VanderMolen v. Horn, No. 1:24-cv-1323, 2025 WL 32927, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Jan.
6, 2025) (quoting Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48, 90 S. Ct. 200, 24 L. Ed. 2d. 214 (1969)). “When
a case becomes moot under Article III, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of

The BOP’s online inmate locator also indicates that Perez-Cardenas was released from BOP custody on October 4,
2024. (See https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp (enter “Alejandro” for “First Name,” enter “PerezCardenas” for “Last Name,” then select “Search”) (last visited Mar. 12, 2025).) The Court may take judicial notice of
information contained on the BOP’s online inmate locator service. See Raglin v. Farley, No. 4:11-cv-2146, 2012 WL
113028, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 12, 2012) (citing Harvey v. Eichenlaub, No. 06-cv-15375, 2007 WL 2782249, at
*1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 24, 2007)).
1

2

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate.” Turner v. Bolar, No. 4:23-cv-851, 2023 WL
4490408, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 12, 2023) (citing Lyshe v. Levy, 854 F.3d 855, 857 (6th Cir. 2017)
and KNC Invs., LLC v. Lane’s End Stallions, Inc., 579 F. App’x 381, 383 (6th Cir. 2014)).
Here, Perez-Cardenas’s petition seeks an order directing the “Bureau of Prisons to [a]pply
time-credits towards [his] sentence,” thereby reducing the time he would remain in custody. (Doc.
No. 1, at 2, 8.) But because Perez-Cardenas has been released from custody, no actual injury
remains for which the Court could offer redress. See, e.g., VanderMolen, 2025 WL 32927, at *2
(dismissing § 2241 petition as moot where the petitioner sought application of First Step Act
credits but was subsequently released from custody); Alexander v. Healy, No. 4:23-cv-02384, 2024
WL 2020281, at *2 (N.D. Ohio May 7, 2024) (similar); Turner, 2023 WL 4490408, at *2 (finding
that because the petitioner had been released from BOP custody, a “decision on the amount of
federal time credit [the petitioner] should have been granted would be purely academic and would
have no effect on [the petitioner’s] circumstances”). Accordingly, Perez-Cardenas’s habeas
petition is moot and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Warden’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Perez-

Cardenas’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability is
not needed to appeal the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501, 504 (6th Cir. 2004).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2025
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3