BLAUSER v. CAPOZZA et al

Filing 15

ORDER dismissing Petition as Moot in light of Petitioner's unconditional release and the fact that by means of this Petition, he only sought to challenge the denial of parole. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 3/10/2017. A copy of the Order together with this Notice of Electronic Filing are being mailed to Petitioner at his address of record. (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JASON ALLEN BLAUSER,

)
)
)
vs.
)
)
SUPERINTENDENT MARK CAPOZZA; )
SECRETARY KIMBERLY BARKLEY,
)
KATHLEEN KANE The Attorney General )
of the State of Pennsylvania,
)
Respondents. )
Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 14-1449
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

ORDER
Jason Allen Blauser (“Petitioner”) was a state prisoner who filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”), ECF No. 3, challenging the
February 18, 2014, denial of his parole application by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and
Parole (“the Board”). It came to the Court’s attention that Petitioner apparently was released
from custody as he was no longer listed as a current prisoner on the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections Inmate Locator website. A call to the Department of Corrections confirmed that
Petitioner was released on parole as of November 19, 2015, but recommitted as a technical parole
violator as of July 12, 2016 and then was absolutely released as of September 2, 2016, having
reached his maximum sentence. As a consequence, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause
why this case should not be dismissed as moot. ECF No. 13. The Response was due March 7,
2017. However, on March 6, 2017, the Order to Show Cause was returned to this Court as
“Return to Sender, Inmate Inactive, Paroled 09/02/16.” ECF No. 14.

In light of the foregoing, the Petition is DISMISSED as moot. See, e.g., Bethea v.
Bickwell, No. 13–CV–1694, 2015 WL 1608521, at *2 (M.D. Pa. April 10, 2015) (“With respect
to his parole claim, Bethea is not challenging his conviction or sentence. Rather, he is
challenging the Board's denial of parole and he seeks immediate release on parole. But since
Bethea has been released . . . this court cannot provide him any relief on this habeas claim. So, as
the respondent argues and as Bethea concedes, this claim is now moot. See Razzoli v. FCI
Allenwood, 200 F. App'x 166, 169 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating that ‘[t]hrough the passage of time
Razzoli has been released on parole, thereby obtaining the relief that he sought through habeas’
and holding that Razzoli's claims that his release on parole was illegally delayed are moot)”).
BY THE COURT:
s/Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: March 10, 2017
cc:

Jason Allen Blauser
KL-2230
SCI Pittsburgh
P.O. Box 99991
Pittsburgh, PA 15233
All Counsel of Record Via CM-ECF