Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Braxton v. Patrick

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


May 23, 2006

ANDREW BRAXTON, PETITIONER
v.
GEORGE PATRICK, SUPERINTENDENT, AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE RESPONDENTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Gibson

Magistrate Judge Hay

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Andrew Braxton, a state prisoner, has filed a Section 2254 habeas petition, seeking to be released on parole. His habeas petition was filed in September 2005. Doc. 3. The Board of Probation filed its answer. Doc. 6. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a traverse. Doc. 7.

The Parole Board granted Petitioner parole "ON OR AFTER 6/15/2004 TO AN APPROVED PLAN UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS . . .." Doc. 3 at p. 5.*fn1 Although Petitioner was granted conditional parole, by the time he filed his habeas petition in September 2005, he had still not been released on parole more than one year after June 15, 2004. The reason for his not being released on parole was that his home plans all proved to be unsatisfactory. Doc. 3 at ¶¶ 2 & 7. The relief which Petitioner sought was to have this court direct that he be "released from custody [i.e., released on parole] via home plan or C.C.C.*fn2 Center." Doc. 7 at 2.

It has come to the court's attention that Petitioner may already have been released on parole to a Community Corrections Center ("C.C.C."). Accordingly, the following order is entered:

AND NOW this 23rd day of May 2006, Petitioner is ordered to file with this court by June 9, 2006, a statement as to whether or not he has been released to a C.C.C. and, if he has been released to a C.C.C., why this case should not be dismissed as being moot*fn3 now that he has apparently obtained the very relief he seeks in this habeas proceeding. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this petition.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and Local Rule 72.1.3, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file an appeal from this order to the District Court. Any opposing party shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of the appeal to respond thereto. Failure to timely file an appeal may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

AMY REYNOLDS HAY United States Magistrate Judge

Hon. Kim R. Gibson United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.