Karim v. Pearson

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for complete details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 03/28/2018. Copy sent to Petitioner as directed.(ccol, ) (Main Document 30 replaced on 3/30/2018) (ccol, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
SALAR OMAR KARIM,
Petitioner.

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16CV950

EDDIE L. PEARSON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Salar Omar Karim. a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se. brings this petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (''§ 2254 Petition," ECF No. 1), challenging the manner in which
the Virginia Department of Corrections has calculated his sentence. By Memorandum Opinion
and Order entered on August 2, 2017, the Court dismissed Claims One (a), Two. Three. and
Four. The Court directed Respondent to file a further response addressing the merits of Claim
One (b). Respondent has filed a Supplemental Response (ECF No. 24) and Karim filed a Reply
(ECF No. 25). On February 16. 2018. the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
dismissed Karim's interlocutory appeal. (ECF No. 26.) From the record before the Court. it
appears that Karim's projected release date from incarceration was February 26. 2018. (See ECF
No. 20, at 4.)
"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 'I Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). Here, it
appears that Karim was scheduled to be released from incarceration on February 26, 2018. If

Karim has been released from custody, his § 2254 Petition challenging the calculation of hi s
sentence no longer presents a case or controversy that this Court can address. See Spencer, 523
C.S. al 7 (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on
March 1, 20 18, the Cow1 directed Karim, within eleven ( 11 ) days of the date of entry thereof, to
show good cause why his § 2254 Petition should not be dismissed as moot. The Court warned
Karim that a failure to file a proper response would result in the dism issal of the action. See Feel.
R. Civ. P. 41 (b).
More than eleven (11) days have elapsed and Ka rim has fa iled to show good cause why
his § 2254 Petition should not be dism issed as moot or ot herwise respond to the March I, 20 l 8
Memorandum Order. Accordingly, Karim 's remaining claim and the § 2254 Petition (ECF
No. I) wi ll be DISMISSED AS MOOT.
An appropriate Order shall issue.

Isl
Roderick C. Young
United States Magistrate Ju

Date: March 2.5° , 2018
Richmond , Virgin ia

2