Schwindling v. Samuels et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 6/15/2015. (bjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION GEORGE A. SCHWINDLING § VS. § CHARLES E. SAMUELS § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15cv49 MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner George A. Schwindling, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Analysis Petitioner complains that the Bureau of Prisons has incorrectly calculated his release date and that he should have already been released. A member of the court’s staff has determined that petitioner was released from confinement on March 11, 2015. Federal courts are said to be courts of “limited jurisdiction.” See County Court of Ulster County, N.Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 154 (1979). Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States Government extends only to “Cases” or “Controversies.” The “case or controversy” requirement demands, inter alia, that a cause of action before a federal court present a “justiciable” controversy. “[N]o justiciable controversy is presented ... when the question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by subsequent developments.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968). Petitioner asks the court to order that he be released because his sentence was improperly calculated. As petitioner has been released from confinement, he has received the relief requested. His petition therefore no longer presents a justiciable controversy and should be dismissed without prejudice as moot. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this petition for writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed without prejudice as moot. An appropriate final judgment shall entered. SIGNED this the 15 day of June, 2015. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?