Delgado v. Wilson
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 5/3/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HARRY DELGADO,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:11CV165
v.
E.D. WILSON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Harry Delgado, a federal inmate who is currently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional
Institute in Petersburg, Virginia, submitted this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ 2241 Petition"). Delgado contends that he did not receive due process in
conjunction with his institutional conviction. Specifically, Delgado asserts there was insufficient
evidence to support that conviction for possession of a hazardous tool, which resulted in the loss
of 40 days of good conduct time. Respondent has moved for summary judgment on the ground
that Delgado's § 2241 Petition is moot. Delgado has not responded.1 The matter is ripe for
disposition.
I. Standard for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). It is the responsibility of the party seeking summary judgment to inform the
court of the basis for the motion, and to identify the parts of the record which demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
1Respondent provided Delgado with the appropriate notice required byRoseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).
(1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive
issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotation
marks omitted). When the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond
the pleadings and, by citing affidavits or '"depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id.
(quotingformer Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and 56(e) (1986)).
Here, Respondent has submitted a declaration from Curtis Hise, a Discipline Hearing
Administrator for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). (Resp't's
Mot. Summ. J. & Mem. Supp. Ex. 1 ("Hise Decl.").) Respondent also submitted copies of
Delgado's disciplinary record. (Hise Decl. Attachs. 1 & 2.) Additionally, Respondent relies
upon the documents Delgado submitted in conjunction with his § 2241 Petition. In light of the
foregoing submissions, the following facts are established for purposes of the Motion for
Summary Judgment.
II. Summary of Pertinent Facts
After a disciplinary hearing, a Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") found Delgado
guilty of the institutional charge of possession of a hazardous tool. (§ 2241 Pet. Ex. D 3.) The
DHO sanctioned Delgado with the imposition of 60 days of disciplinary segregation, a transfer,
forfeiture of 40 days of good conduct time, and the loss of some privileges. (Id.; § 2241 Pet. 1.)
On March 16, 2011, the Court received Delgado's § 2241 Petition. In his § 2241 Petition,
Delgado requests that the Court declare that he did not receive due process in conjunction with
his institutional conviction for possession of a hazardous tool. (§ 2241 Pet. 11.) Delgado further
requests the conviction "be rescinded and that the 40 days forfeited Good Conduct Time be
restored." (Id.)
On December 23, 2011, the Court denied Respondent's motion to dismiss Delgado's
§ 2241 Petition. See Delgado v. Wilson, No. 3:11CV165, 2011 WL 6750768, at *4 (E.D. Va.
Dec. 23, 2011). On January 5, 2012, the BOP expunged from Delgado's institutional record his
conviction of possession of a hazardous tool and the sanctions imposed as a result of that
conviction. (Hise Decl. Iffl 5, 6; Hise Decl. Attach. 1 & 2.) Additionally, the BOP restored to
Delgado the 40 days of good conduct time, which had been forfeited as a result of that
conviction. (Hise Decl. ^ 6; Hise Decl. Attach. 1 & 2.)
III. Analysis
"A habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under
Article III, § 2, of the Constitution." Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691 (10th Cir. 1998)
(citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)).
No case or controversy exists unless the
petitioner has suffered an actual injury that can "'be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.'"
Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). Here,
Delgado has received all the relief he could obtain by a favorable ruling on his habeas—the BOP
has expunged the pertinent conviction from Delgado's record and restored to Delgado his
forfeited good conduct time. That action renders Delgado's § 2241 Petition moot. See Johnson v.
Finnan, 252 F. App'x 98, 99 (7th Cir. 2007) (emphasizing that a federal habeas court "reviews
custody (here, a revocation of good-time credits), and when [the alleged violation that impacts the
duration of the inmate's sentence] ends (here, by restoration of the credits) the federal proceeding
becomes moot");2 see also Spencer, 523 U.S. at 18 (stating that the federal courts "are not inthe
business of pronouncing that past actions which have no demonstrable continuing effect were
right or wrong"). Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 13) will be
granted and the action will be dismissed as moot.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Is!
John A. Gibney, Jj
Date: ^Mj7Richmond, Virginia
United States DMricjfJudge
To the extentthat Delgado wishes any relief with respect to the other sanctions imposed
as a result of his institutional conviction—which did not impact the duration of his confinement,
he must file a separate civil rights action.
4
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?