Moore v. Strada

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM (eo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AARON JUAN MOORE,
Petitioner

v.

WARDEN FRANK STRADA,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-1454
Hon. John E. Jones III

MEMORANDUM
September 6, 2011
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
On August 8, 2011, Petitioner Aaron Juan Moore (“Petitioner” or “Moore”), a
former federal inmate, initiated the above action pro se by filing a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) At
the time of filing, he was confined at the Low Security Correctional Institution Allenwood (“LSCI Allenwood”) in White Deer, Pennsylvania. His Petition
challenged his loss of good time credits following prison disciplinary proceedings.
By Order dated August 18, 2011, we directed service of the Petition on
Respondent and directed the filing of an answer to the Petition within twenty-one (21)
days. (Doc. 5.) On August 26, 2011, Respondent filed a Suggestion of Mootness

stating that, on August 17, 2011, Moore was released from the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) via good conduct time release. (Doc. 6 at 1.) Attached to
Respondent’s filing is the Declaration of Michael S. Romano, Attorney Advisor at the
United States Penitentiary Lewisburg, verifying Moore’s release (id. at 3), and a copy
of Moore’ Public Information Inmate Data as of August 24, 2011 reflecting that he
was released on August 17, 2011 via good conduct time release (id. at 4).
DISCUSSION
The case or controversy requirement of Article III, § 2 of the United States
Constitution subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings. Parties must
continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v.
Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S.
395, 401 (1975). In other words, throughout the course of the action, the aggrieved
party must suffer or be threatened with actual injury caused by the defendant. Lewis,
494 U.S. at 477.
The adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon “the continuing
existence of a live and acute controversy.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974)
(emphasis in original). “The rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must be
extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Id. at n.10
(citations omitted). “Past exposure to illegal conduct is insufficient to sustain a present
2

case or controversy . . . if unaccompanied by continuing, present adverse effects.”
Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F. Supp. 1451, 1462 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (citing O'Shea v. Littleton,
414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974)); see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, Civil No.3:CV-02-465, slip
op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002) (Vanaskie, C.J.).
In the instant case, Moore’s challenge was to his loss of good conduct time credits
following disciplinary proceedings conducted during his time in BOP custody. (See Doc.
1 at 1.) As observed by Respondent, Moore did not make a specific request for relief in
his Petition, but it can be presumed that he wanted restoration of at least a portion of his
good conduct time that had been taken as a sanction. Thus, where Moore has been
released from BOP custody via good conduct time release, his request for restoration of
good conduct time now is moot. Accordingly, the Petition must be dismissed for lack of
case or controversy. An appropriate Order will enter.

3