Gilmore v. Tritt et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 as MOOT & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/9/18. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEVIN GILMORE,
Petitioner
v.
BRENDA TRITT, et al.,
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:16-CV-1619
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of November, 2018, upon consideration of the
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), wherein
petitioner, Kevin Gilmore, alleged that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole violated his due process rights when the Board denied parole, and sought
immediate release on parole (see Doc. 2), and this court, in an effort to ascertain the
custodial status of petitioner, accessed the Vinelink online inmate locator, which
revealed that petitioner has been released from custody1, and has served the
maximum term of his sentence as of September 9, 2018 (see Doc. 8-1 at 11), which
renders the petition moot, see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (dismissing the
habeas petition as moot where petitioner challenged the failure to be released on
parole and was subsequently released on parole); DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d
Upon entering petitioner’s offender identification number, LS9657, into the
Vinelink online inmate locator system, https://www.vinelink.com/#/search, his
status was returned as follows:
1

Offender Name:
Custody Status:
Location:

Gilmore, Kevin
Out of Custody
Paroled

439, 441 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982)) (“[A] petition
for habeas corpus relief generally becomes moot when a prisoner is released from
custody before the court has addressed the merits of the petition.”); 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.”); 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 any
collateral consequences that are the result of the prior denial of parole, see Spencer,
523 U.S. at 14-18 (petitioner’s purported injuries in fact—that parole revocation
could be used against him in future parole proceedings, to increase his sentence in
future sentencing proceedings, to impeach him should he appear as a witness or
litigant in a future judicial proceeding, or as a defendant in a future criminal
proceeding—were insufficient to establish a collateral consequence), 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