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, )

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