Badran v. Baltazar et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 12/23/14. (ep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMRO BADRAN,
Petitioner
v.

:
:
:

WARDEN JUAN BALTAZAR
Respondent

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-1465

:

(JUDGE MANNION)

:
MEMORANDUM

Amro Badran, previously an inmate confined in the Federal Prison Camp
in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. (Doc. 1). Badran claims that his due process rights
were violated during the course of a prison disciplinary hearing held on
September 5, 2013, where he was found guilty of the prohibited act of refusing
to provide a urine sample. Id. Specifically, he argues that: (1) his staff
representative was ineffective, (2) he was not permitted to present witnesses or
documentary evidence, (3) documentary evidence was improperly amended, (4)
his defense was improperly disregarded, and (5) the reporting officer violated
federal regulations. Id. Badran requests that his incident report be expunged from
his record, and his good credit time be reinstated. Id. For the reasons set forth
below, the petition will be dismissed as moot.

Background
On August 15, 2013, Badran was served with Incident Report No.
24080882 charging him with failure to provide a urine sample, a Code 101
violation. (Doc. 7, Ex. 1, Att. C). On August 16, 2013, the Unit Discipline
Committee forwarded the matter to the Discipline Hearing Officer (“DHO”). Id.
After conducting a hearing on August 29, 2013, the DHO reopened proceedings
and held a rehearing on September 5, 2013. Id. On September 25, 2013, the
DHO issued a decision finding that Badran had committed the prohibited act.
This decision was delivered to Badran on October 14, 2013. Id.
On November 12, 2013 the Regional Office received Badran’s initial
appeal. (Doc. 2). The appeal to the Regional Office was dismissed as untimely
on November 19, 2013. Id. Thereafter, Badran filed eight further appeals to the
Regional Office, accompanied by staff verification explaining why the appeals
were filed untimely. (Doc. 7, Ex. 1, Att. D). Each appeal was dismissed as
untimely.1 Id. On March 11, 2014, the General Counsel received Badran’s
1

Despite Badran clearly stating in his initial appeal that he was appealing the
DHO's September 25, 2013 decision, incident report 2480882, the Regional
Office attributed the appeal to incident report 2465082. (Doc. 1). Thereafter,
every subsequent appeal was similarly attributed to incident report 2465082.
(Doc. 7, Ex. 1, Att. D). Consequently, the Regional Office continued to
erroneously dismiss Badran's appeals as untimely. Id. As a result, Badran's
2

appeal, and on April 11, 2014, rejected his appeal for the same reasons provided
by the Regional Office. Id. On July 29, 2014, Badran filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus before this Court. (Doc. 1). On September 2, 2014, Respondent
filed his response, and on September 24, 2014, Badran filed a reply. (Docs. 7,
9). On October 17, 2014, Badran was released from custody.

Discussion
Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal courts to the
adjudication of only ongoing cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.
1. If at any time the petitioner does not have a “personal stake in the outcome”
of the suit, “the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum
Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). “Once the convict’s sentence has
expired, some concrete and continuing injury other than the new-ended
incarceration or parole - some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction - must
exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).
Consequently, a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 challenging the loss of good
time credits becomes “moot upon [petitioner’s] release from imprisonment unless

failure to exhaust administrative remedies is excusable because further appeal
would have been futile. See, Gambino v. Morris, 134 F.3d 156, 171 (3d Cir.
1998).
3

he [or she] can demonstrate some ‘collateral consequence’ that persists beyond
the sentence’s expiration and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.” Scott v. Schuykill FCI, 298 F.App’x 202, 204 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing
Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7)).
In Badran’s memorandum of law in support of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus, he stated that his sentence was due to end on October 18, 2014,
at which time his supervised release would begin. (Doc. 2). A search on the
Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator confirms that petitioner Amro Badran,
registration number 63991-050, was released from custody on October 17, 2014.
Therefore, unless some collateral consequence exists, his petition is now moot.
Scott, 298 F.App’x at 204.
Here, no collateral consequences exist as a result of the prison
disciplinary hearing. The only possible collateral consequence noted by Badran
is the possibility of drug testing. (Doc. 2). Specifically, he stated that “Mr. Badran
also expects that, although his sentencing judge in the District Of New Jersey
(where he will be serving his term of Supervised Release) sa [sic] fit to waive the
otherwise mandatory drug testing, he would now be subject to such testing.” Id.
Such speculative concern is not sufficient to create a collateral consequence
sufficient to provide jurisdiction over this petition, particularly where Badran’s
4

violation related not to a drug charge, but to failure to provide a urine sample.
See, Wilcox v. Aleman, 43 F.App’x 210, 212 (10th Cir. 2002) (“We conclude that
the remote possibility of a future drug test requirement is insufficiently concrete
to supply the necessary collateral consequence required”).
As Badran has completed his sentence and is on supervised release, this
Court can offer him no relief. Scott, 298 F. App’x at 204. Thus, the petition for writ
of habeas corpus is moot. Id.

Conclusion
A review of the record reveals that the Badran’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus is moot. Consequently, the petition will be dismissed.
An appropriate Order will be entered.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Dated: December 23, 2014
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2014 MEMORANDA\14-1465-01.wpd

5