Anderson v. United States of America

Filing 6

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING MOTION 4 , DENYING PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2241, CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 10/21/2016. (Anderson, S.)

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

MERVIN G. ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
MYRON BATTS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02172-STA-cgc

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING MOTION,
DENYING PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2241,
CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH,
AND
DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
On March 17, 2016, Petitioner, Mervin G. Anderson, Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) register
number 12497-076, who was, at the time, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Memphis, Tennessee (“FCI Memphis”), filed a pro se Emergency Motion for 28 U.S.C. 2241
and Injunctive Relief (“§ 2241 Petition”). (§ 2241 Pet., ECF No. 1.) The habeas filing fee was
paid on March 28, 2016. (Case initiation fee, ECF No. 3.) The Clerk shall record the respondent
as FCI Memphis Warden Myron Batts.1 On April 26, 2016, Anderson filed a Motion for Writ of
Mandamus. (Mot. for Writ of Mandamus, ECF No. 4.) For the reasons stated below, the Motion
for Writ of Mandamus and the § 2241 Petition are DENIED.

1

The § 2241 Petition names the United States of America as the sole respondent. The
only proper respondent to a habeas petition is the petitioner’s custodian. Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004). The Clerk is directed to terminate the United States of America as
a party to this action.

When the § 2241 Petition was filed, Anderson was serving a thirty-year federal sentence.
Anderson became eligible for placement in a residential re-entry center (“RRC”) in May 2015,
but he was informed that, because bed space in Memphis was limited, he would be housed at FCI
Memphis until the expiration of his sentence. (§ 2241 Pet. at 2, ECF No. 1.) The § 2241 Petition
alleges that the denial of RRC placement “VIOLATES ‘DUE PROCESS, ADMINISTRATION
[sic] PROCEDURE ACT, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND/OR THE FAIR SENTENCING ACT,
via THE SECOND CHANCE ACT.’” (Id.) Anderson asks to be released to home confinement
or to be released unconditionally. (Id. at 5.)
“Article III of the Constitution confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding
actual ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013) (citing
U.S. Const., art. III, § 2). This is “a cradle-to-grave requirement that must be met in order to file
a claim in federal court and that must be met in order to keep it there.” Fialka-Feldman v.
Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711, 713 (6th Cir. 2011). “[A] federal 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 Cal.
v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Coalition for
Gov’t Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., 365 F.3d 435, 458 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Under the
‘case or controversy’ requirement, we lack authority to issue a decision that does not affect the
rights of the litigants.”); Sw. Williamson Cnty. Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Slater, 243 F.3d 270, 276 (6th
Cir. 2001) (same). The mootness question turns on whether a federal court can afford a litigant
any “effectual relief.” Coalition for Gov’t Procurement, 365 F.3d at 458.
A habeas petition that does not challenge the validity of a criminal judgment ordinarily is
moot when the condition at issue has abated or the inmate has been transferred to another

2

facility. 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, 94041 (8th Cir. 1983) (dismissing as moot habeas petition alleging harassment because petitioner
was transferred to another prison). In this case, the BOP’s Inmate Locator reflects that Anderson
was released on September 19, 2016. See http://bop.gov/inmateloc. Because Anderson is no
longer in BOP custody, the Court is unable to order that the BOP release him.
Because the § 2241 Petition is moot, “it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled” to any relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. An order for Respondent to
show cause need not issue. The § 2241 Petition and the Motion for Writ of Mandamus are
DENIED as moot. 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. App’x 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 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 $505 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

3

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).
Because the § 2241 Petition is clearly moot, the Court determines that any appeal would
not be taken in good faith. It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 24(a), that any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith. Leave to appeal
in forma pauperis is DENIED.2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2016.

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

2

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 30 days.
4