Carpenter v. Baltazar

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM A separate Order shall issue.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 5/11/17. (jfg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DANIEL CARPENTER,

Civil NO.3: 16-cv-2327

Petitioner

(Judge Mariani)

v.
WARDEN J. BALTAZAR,
Respondent

MEMORANDUM
I.

Background
On November 21, 2016, Petitioner, Daniel Carpenter, filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
("BOP") decision to deny him a period of home confinement or placement in a Residential
Re-Entry Center at the end of his sentence. (Doc. 1). At the time his petition was filed,
Carpenter was confined at the Canaan United States Penitentiary, Waymart, Pennsylvania.
(Id.). For relief, Carpenter requests early release to a halfway house, placement in a

Residential Re-entry Center, or home confinement. (Id. at pp. 5-6).
On May 10, 2017, Respondent filed a suggestion of mootness stating that Carpenter
was released from BOP custody on January 26,2017. (Doc. 14; Doc. 14-1, Inmate
Locator). Thus, Respondent asserts that no further relief is available to Carpenter and the
habeas petition should be dismissed as moot. (Id.). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court will dismiss the petition as moot.

II.

Discussion

Article III of the Constitution provides that the "judicial Power shall extend to...
Cases... [and] to Controversies." U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. "This grant of authority
embodies a fundamental limitation restricting the federal courts to the adjudication of 'actual,
ongoing cases or controversies.' Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 192-93
(3d Cir. 2001). The mootness doctrine is centrally concerned with the court's ability to grant
effective relief: '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 e dismissed as moot.' Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum

Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). Moreover, the requirement that an action involve
a live case or controversy extends through all phases of litigation, including appellate
review. See Khodara Envtl., Inc., 237 F.3d at 193 (citing Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,
494 U.S. 472 (1990)." County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir.
2001). Finally, federal habeas corpus review is available only "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). Once a petitioner has been released from custody,
"some continuing injury, also referred to as a collateral consequence, must exist for the
action to continue." Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009).
In the instant petition, Carpenter seeks early release to a halfway house, placement

2

in a Residential Re-entry Center, or home confinement. (Doc. 1). On January 26,2017,
Carpenter was released from federal custody. See (Doc. 14-1, Inmate Locator).
Carpenter's petition for writ of habeas corpus has been rendered moot by virtue of his
release from custody. Moreover, Carpenter has not alleged nor can the Court perceive of
any collateral consequences to maintain his habeas petition. As there is no longer a live
case or controversy, and Carpenter has received the relief he requested, namely release,
the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed as moot.
A separate Order shall issue.

Date: May

JI!-, 2017

Ro ert .~1-H!tI11
United States District Judge

3