Lucas v. WV Regional Jail Correctional Facility Authority

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot Petitioner's 1 § 2254 Petition; denying as moot Respondent's 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment; declining to adopt as moot the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; and dismissing this action from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/21/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mnm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

ANGEL MARIE LUCAS,
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-00626

MICHAEL FRANCIS,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Petitioner Angel Marie Lucas’ Motion for Writ of Habeas
Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF 1] and Respondent Michael Francis’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. [ECF 16.] By Standing Order entered on May 7, 2014, and filed in this
case on January 22, 2015, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for
submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). Magistrate
Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R on December 28, 2015, recommending that this Court grant
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, dismiss Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, and
remove this matter from the Court’s docket.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed her § 2254 Petition on January 14, 2015. At the time of filing, Petitioner
was a pre-trial detainee being housed in Southwestern Regional Jail in Holden, West Virginia. A
detailed history of her underlying state criminal charges is set forth in the PF&R. The Petition
sets forth a number of grievances against the West Virginia judicial system and West Virginia
Child Protective Services.

Specifically, Petitioner questions the sufficiency of the State’s

evidence, raises affirmative defenses to the charges for which she is being detained, and complains
of general difficulties she encountered while temporarily released on home confinement. On
April 23, 2015, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Petitioner’s claims
were not cognizable under either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254. According to state court filings
submitted in further support of her Petition, Petitioner entered a Kennedy plea to a misdemeanor
offense in the Circuit Court of Cabell County, West Virginia on May 21, 2015. She was sentenced
to a term of incarceration of six months, with credit for time served. (ECF 19-1 at 9.)
Magistrate Judge VanDervort liberally construed Petitioner’s pro se filings and evaluated
her claims under the legal standards set forth in both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 2254. He found that
neither statute supports an award of habeas relief because Petitioner had not alleged that she was
being held in violation of her constitutional rights (as required by § 2241) and had not exhausted
the remedies available to her in state court (as required by §2254). The PF&R was mailed to
Petitioner’s last known address at Western Regional Jail in Barboursville, West Virginia but was
returned as undeliverable on January 14, 2016. (ECF 21.) A search of the West Virginia
Department of Correction’s Inmate Locator indicated that Petitioner has been released from
custody. On January 15, 2016, a call to the Western Regional Jail confirmed that Petitioner was
released from custody on September 2, 2015.
II.

ANALYSIS

Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 provide a remedy only when a prisoner is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 2241(c)(3); 28
U.S.C. 2254(a). Furthermore, the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal
courts to actual cases or controversies that are present at all stages of review. U. S. Const. art. III,
§ 2; Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). When a case or controversy no longer exists, the
2

claim is said to be “moot.” In the context of habeas corpus, a case is rendered moot when the
inmate has been released from the custody being challenged, without collateral consequences, and
the court can no longer remedy the inmate’s grievance. See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,
7 (1998); Alston v. Adams, 178 Fed. Appx. 295, 2006 WL 1194751 (4th Cir. 2007).
Petitioner was released from custody and has not shown the existence of collateral
consequences arising upon the expiration of her sentence. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14. If she
wished to continue her pursuit of habeas relief following her release from incarceration, it was
incumbent on her to apprise the Court of her current address. See Local R. Civ. P. 83.5 (“A pro
se party must advise the clerk promptly of any changes in name, address, and telephone number.”).
This case has been rendered moot and the Court therefore dismisses the § 2254 Petition.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition
[ECF 1] and Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 16], DECLINES TO ADOPT
AS MOOT the PF&R [ECF 20], and DISMISSES this action from the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

January 21, 2016