Wainscott v. Maiorana

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING petition for writ of h/c 1 as MOOT & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/13/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH M. WAINSCOTT,
Petitioner
v.
C. MAIORANA, WARDEN,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:16-CV-581
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2017, upon consideration of the
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), wherein
petitioner, Joseph Wainscott, alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) incorrectly
computed his federal sentence and requests prior custody credit of five (5) months
and fourteen (14) days, and this court, in an effort to ascertain the custodial status of
petitioner, accessed the Federal Bureau of Prisons online inmate locator, which
revealed that petitioner has been released from BOP custody1, which renders the
petition moot, see Khodara Envtl., Inc. ex rel. Eagle Envtl., L.P. v. Beckman, 237
F.3d 186, 192-93 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Article III of the Constitution grants the federal
courts the power to adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”);
Upon entering petitioner’s offender identification number, 17494-032, into
the Federal Bureau of Prisons online inmate locator system,
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/, his status was returned as follows:
1

Offender Name:
Release Date:

Joseph M. Wainscott
Not in BOP Custody
Unknown

Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If
developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s
personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant
the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”), and, further, because
petitioner has not asserted nor can the court perceive of any collateral
consequences to maintain his habeas petition, see Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d
142, 148-49 (3d Cir. 2009) (federal inmate’s challenge to BOP determination that he
is not eligible for early release became moot when inmate was released from prison
because “[t]he possibility that the sentencing court will use its discretion to modify
the length of Burkey’s term of supervised release . . . is so speculative that any
decision on the merits by the District Court would be merely advisory and not in
keeping with Article III’s restriction of power”); Wilson v. Reilly, 163 F. App’x 122
(3d Cir. 2006) (when the Parole Board provided the habeas petitioner with the relief
sought in his § 2241 petition, the habeas claim was rendered moot), it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as moot.

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania