Watts v. McGee et al

Filing 23

ORDER to Correct the Docket; Order granting 21 Motion to Dismiss; Order Dismissing Petition; and Order Certifying Appeal Not Taken in Good Faith. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 3/17/14. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL S. WATTS,
Petitioner,
vs.
D.R. STEPHENS,
Respondent.

)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(
)
(

No. 12-2011-STA-dkv

ORDER TO CORRECT THE DOCKET
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 21)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
AND
ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
On January 6, 2012, Petitioner Michael S. Watts, Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) inmate registration number 07690-088, who was, at
the time, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Memphis, Tennessee,1 filed a pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, alleging that a belated disciplinary hearing arising from
a positive drug screen while at a Residential Reentry Center
(“RRC”) deprived him of due process.

(ECF No. 1.)

Watts requests

the restoration of forty days of good conduct time, restoration of
forty days of non-vested good conduct time, removal of 180 days of
disciplinary

1

segregation,

restoration

of

On July 8, 2013, Watts provided a new address.
to update the docket with Watts present address.

privileges,

and

The Clerk is directed

expungement of the disciplinary report. (ECF No. 1 at 6.)

The

Court issued an order on June 1, 2012, directing the Warden2 to
respond to the petition. (ECF No. 7.)
On

August

17,

2012,

Respondent

filed

a

response

to

the

petition contending that Watts’ petition should be denied because:
(1) Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (2)
Petitioner was not deprived of due process; and (3) The evidence
was sufficient to support Petitioner’s guilt.

(ECF No. 19.)

The

response includes the declaration of Thomas McGee, Discipline
Hearing Officer for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, with attached disciplinary records (ECF No. 191) and the declaration of Marvella Heard, Legal Assistant at the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, with
attached records verifying Watts’ failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. (ECF No. 19-2.)
On June 19, 2013, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Watts’
petition as moot.

That motion states, inter alia, that “Plaintiff

was released by the Bureau of Prisons on May 10, 2012. (Exhibit 1,
Prinout from BOP Locator website). Given that the Petitioner was
seeking the restoration of good time with respect to his sentence,
the reversal of administrative segregation that has already been
served, the restoration of certain privileges while incarcerated ,

2

The current warden at FCI Memphis is now D.R. Stephens. The Clerk
is directed to update the docket by recording D.R. Stephens as the respondent and
terminating Juan Castillo as Respondent.

2

and the expungement of his prison disciplinary record, his release
from custody renders his Petition moot.” (ECF No. 21 at 1-2.)
On July 8, 2013, Petitioner responded to the motion to dismiss
seeking to change his prayer for relief to include compensation for
the delay of his release.

(ECF No. 22 at 2.)

Watts’ claim is no longer justiciable.

A court’s judicial

power extends only over actual cases and controversies.

The Court

“has no authority to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract
propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot
affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Church of
Scientology

of

California

v.

United

States,

506

U.S.

9,

12

(1992)(quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). “For that
reason, if an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that
makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief
whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.” Id.
See also Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 238 F.3d 704, 713 (6th Cir.
2001)(“A case is deemed moot if the relief sought would make no
difference to the legal interests of the parties.”); Cleveland
Branch, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
v. City of Parma, 263 F.3d 513, 530 (6th Cir. 2001).

A case or

controversy that is no longer active can overcome the mootness
doctrine only where “(1) the challenged action was in its duration
too

short

to

be

fully

litigated

prior

to

its

cessation

or

expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the

3

same complaining party would be subjected to the same action
again.” Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148 (1975).
Because Plaintiff is no longer in the custody of the BOP,
injunctive relief is no longer available. Moore v. Curtis, 68 F.
App’x 561, 562 (6th Cir. 2003); Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175
(6th Cir. 1996); Peck v. Mortimer, 650 F.2d 929, 930 (8th Cir.
1981); see Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir. 1992)
(dismissing as moot habeas petition because petitioner had been
released from segregation); Thompson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940-41
(8th Cir. 1983) (dismissing as moot habeas petition alleging
harassment because petitioner was transferred to another prison).
Plaintiff’s request to amend his prayer for relief is unavailing.
Claims for compensatory damages are not cognizable in a petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
This petition requests the Court to consider a controversy
that is no longer active. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s
motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (D.E. 21.) Judgment shall
be entered for Respondent.
Federal prisoners who file petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 challenging their federal custody need not obtain certificates
of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Durham v. United
States Parole Comm’n, 306 F.3d 225, 229 (6th Cir. 2009); Melton v.
Hemingway, 40 F. App’x 44, 45 (6th Cir. 2002) (“a federal prisoner
seeking relief under § 2241 is not required to get a certificate of

4

appealability as a condition to obtaining review of the denial of
his petition”); see also Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501, 504
(6th Cir. 2004) (28 U.S.C. § 2253 “does not require a certificate
of appealability for appeals from denials of relief in cases
properly brought under § 2241, where detention is pursuant to
federal process”).
A habeas petitioner seeking to appeal must pay the $455 filing
fee required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913 and 1917. To appeal in forma
pauperis in a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the petitioner
must obtain pauper status pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 24(a). Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir.
1997). Rule 24(a) provides that a party seeking pauper status on
appeal must first file a motion in the district court, along with
a supporting affidavit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). However, Rule
24(a) also provides that if the district court certifies that an
appeal would not be taken in good faith, or otherwise denies leave
to appeal in forma pauperis, the petitioner must file his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis in the appellate court. See Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a)(4)-(5).
In this case, because Petitioner is clearly not entitled to
relief, the Court determines that any appeal would not be taken in
good faith.

It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.

24(a), that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good
faith. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

5

If Petitioner

files a notice of appeal, he must also pay the full $505 appellate
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
supporting affidavit in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit within thirty (30) days.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2014.

s/ / S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6