McCarthy v. Ebbert
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 3/31/17. (ma)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN J. McCARTHY,
Petitioner
vs.
WARDEN DAVID EBBERT,
Respondent
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-0642
(Judge Caldwell)
MEMORANDUM
I.
Introduction
John J. McCarthy, proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) implementation of
the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1), as amended by the Second Chance Act of 2007,
Pub. L. No. 110-100 (Apr. 9, 2008), relating to placement of inmates in Residential Re-entry
Centers (RRC). (ECF No. 1, Pet.) McCarthy alleged that, by not providing him with oneyear RRC placement, the BOP violated his due process rights, federal law and his equal
protection rights. He claimed he was discriminated against “because of who he is and
because of his unlawful placement in the Special Management Unit at Lewisburg.” (Id., p.
2.) As relief he sought a one-year placement in an RRC. (Id., p. 3.)
Respondent recently filed a Suggestion of Mootness based on McCarthy’s
March 24, 2017, release from BOP custody. (ECF No. 12).
II.
Discussion
Federal habeas corpus review under § 2241 “allows a federal prisoner to
challenge the ‘execution’ of his sentence.” Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d
235, 241-43 (3d Cir. 2005). Habeas corpus review is available “where the deprivation of
rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver,
288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). Generally, a petition for habeas corpus relief becomes
moot when a prisoner is released from custody before the court has addressed the merits
of the petition. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982).
The relevant inquiry in such a scenario becomes whether the case still
presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution.
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); Rendell v.
Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236, 240-241 (3d Cir. 2007). The crucial issue is whether the
petitioner can demonstrate the existence of collateral consequences, i.e., “some concrete
and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole.” Spencer, 523 U.S.
at 7, 118 S.Ct. at 983. This means that, throughout the litigation, an actual controversy,
possible of redress by a favorable judicial decision, must exist. United States v. Kissinger,
309 F.3d 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2002). Collateral consequences are presumed to exist when a
habeas petitioner challenges his underlying criminal conviction. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7-8,
118 S.Ct. at 983. By contrast, challenges to the execution of a sentence that has already
been served will not be presumed. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 12 - 14, 118 S.Ct. at 985-986.
-2-
McCarthy’s petition challenging his length of placement in an RRC prior to his
release from BOP custody is moot based on his March 24, 2017, release. His release
eliminates the Court’s ability to grant him any relief. Under these circumstances, McCarthy
cannot demonstrate any continuing collateral consequences or injury now that he has been
released. As no live controversy remains, McCarthy’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
will be dismissed as moot. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009).
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, this court will dismiss the Petition as moot. We will
issue an appropriate order.
/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge
Date: March 31, 2017
-3-
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?