Gallaway v. Baltazar

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 8/1/17. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES GALLAWAY,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN BALTAZAR,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No.: 4:17-CV-861
(Judge Brann)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AUGUST 1, 2017
I.

BACKGROUND
This petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was

filed by James Gallaway, while he was confined at the Canaan United States
Penitentiary, Waymart, Pennsylvania (USP-Canaan). Named as Respondent is
USP-Canaan Warden Baltazar. Service of the petition was recently ordered.
Petitioner states that he is presently incarcerated for violating the terms of
his supervised release of a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. Gallaway’s pending petition claims entitlement to
sentence credit for time spent incarcerated from October 19, 2015 to March 15,
2016. See Doc. 1, ¶ 13. The Petitioner contends that the period of time at issue
was not credited towards service of any other sentence and if granted proper credit,
he would be entitled to release n June 2017.
-1-

After being initially released from federal custody on December 3, 2014,
Gallaway was arrested on October 19, 2015 and remained incarcerated in the
Atlantic County Prison, Mays Landing, New Jersey until March 15, 2016, when
he posted bail. After posting bail, Gallaway asserts that he was taken into custody
by the United States Marshals pursuant to a federal detainer issued based on
Petitioner’s alleged violation of the terms of his supervised release. Gallaway
acknowledges that he has filed an administrative grievance regarding his present
claim with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) which was still pending at the time
this matter was filed. See Doc. 1-1, p. 2.
Following service of the petition, Respondent filed a “Notice of Suggestion
of Mootness” seeking dismissal of Petitioner’s action due to his June 16, 2017
release from federal custody. See Doc. 6. .
II.

DISCUSSION
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 (3d Cir. 2005). A habeas corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner
who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement in prison.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), Telford v. Hepting, 980 F.2d 745, 748
(3d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 920 (1993). Federal habeas relief is available only
“where the deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length
-2-

of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). Since
Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief with respect to the calculation of his sentence,
this matter was properly raised under § 2241.
The case or controversy requirement of Article III, § 2 of the United States
Constitution subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings. Parties
must continue to have a “‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.” Lewis v.
Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422
U.S. 395, 401 (1975). In other words, throughout the course of the action, the
aggrieved party must suffer or be threatened with actual injury caused by the
defendant. Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477.
The adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon “the continuing
existence of a live and acute controversy.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459
(1974) (emphasis in original). “The rule in federal cases is that an actual
controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the
complaint is filed.” Id. at n.10 (citations omitted). “Past exposure to illegal
conduct is insufficient to sustain a present case or controversy ... if unaccompanied
by continuing, present adverse effects.” Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F. Supp. 1451,
1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974));
see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, Civil No.3:CV-02-465, slip op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May
17, 2002) (Vanaskie, C.J.).
-3-

As explained in Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. Feb. 18,
2009) in the context of a habeas corpus challenge to the execution of a sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, “[i]ncarceration satisfies the case or controversy
requirement; it is a concrete injury.” Id. However, once the petitioner has been
released, “some continuing injury, also referred to as a collateral consequence,
must exist for the action to continue.” Id.; See also United States v. Jackson, 523
F.3d 234, 241 (3d Cir. 2008).
This petition was not filed until May 11, 2017. See Doc. 1, p. 9. Gallaway’s
sole claim asserts that he was improperly denied federal sentence credit for time
spent incarcerated from October 19, 2015 to March 15, 2016. As relief, he sought
his release from federal custody during June 2017. Respondent has notified the
Court that Petitioner was indeed released from federal custody on June 16, 2017.
Also submitted for consideration by the Respondent are institutional records and a
declaration under penalty of perjury by BOP Attorney Advisor Michael
FiggsGanter which also indicate that Gallway was released after completing
service of his federal sentence.
The Supreme Court in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998), held that
release of a petitioner from custody on a parole violator term deprived federal
courts of the power to act. Significantly, the Supreme Court found that there were
no “collateral consequences” remaining after expiration of the parole violator term
-4-

sufficient to animate the matter with a case or controversy capable of concrete
redress, explaining that federal courts “are not in the business of pronouncing that
past actions which have no demonstrable continuing effect were right or wrong.”
Id. at 18. See also United States v. Kissinger, 309 F.3d 179, 181-82 (3d Cir. 2002)
(a petitioner unconditionally released from probation cannot maintain challenge to
sentence received for violating the terms of probation); Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S.
624, 632-34 (1982); Hagwood v. Grondolsky, 2009 WL 455499 *2 (D.N.J. Feb.
19, 2009)(federal inmate’s challenge to the BOP’s reversal of a decision to place
him on home confinement became moot once the BOP placed the prisoner on
home confinement).
Petitioner has not shown that he is suffering any collateral consequences as
required under Spencer, Jackson, and Kissinger stemming from the alleged prior
failure of federal officials to properly calculate his sentence.1 As noted in
Hagwood, the type of habeas claim asserted here is mooted once a federal inmate is
released from federal custody.
Since Gallaway has completed service of his federal sentence, under the
principles set forth in Steffel, his sole claim of improper calculation of his federal
sentence is subject to dismissal as moot since it no longer presents an existing case

1

It is noted that the outcome of Petitioner’s administrative challenge regarding calculation of
his sentence is unknown.
-5-

or controversy.
An appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

-6-