United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge.
Dominguez filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while confined at the
Cannan United States Penitentiary, Waymart, Pennsylvania
(USP-Canaan). The USP-Canaan Warden has been deemed to be the
sole proper Respondent in this matter. Service of the
Petition was previously ordered .
sought habeas corpus relief on the grounds that the BOP
allegedly acted improperly because it calculated his sentence
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 rather than
the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Petitioner also raised
a claim that his due process rights were violated during an
institutional disciplinary hearing which resulted in a loss
of good conduct time.
initial response (Doc. 12) asserted that calculation of
Petitioner's sentence under the PLRA was appropriate
because Petitioner's federal sentence was imposed on
September 12, 2007 well after the PLRA's effective date
of April 25, 1996. The response additionally argued that
Dominguez was afforded all due process protections to which
he was entitled during his institutional disciplinary
has filed a “Suggestion of Mootness.” Doc. 13, p.
1. The notice provides that Petitioner was released from his
federal sentence on July 29, 2016. See id. at p. 2.
In light of Dominguez's release from custody, Respondent
naturally asserts that this matter is moot.
corpus review under § 2241 “allows a federal
prisoner to challenge the ‘execution' of his
sentence.” Woodall v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). A habeas
corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner who seeks to
challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement in
prison. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973),
Telford v. Hepting, 980 F.2d 745, 748 (3d Cir.),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 920 (1993). Federal
habeas relief is available only “where the deprivation
of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or
length of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288
F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002).
case or controversy requirement of Article III, § 2 of
the United States Constitution subsists through all stages of
federal judicial proceedings. Parties must continue to have a
“‘personal stake in the outcome' of the
lawsuit." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494
U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422
U.S. 395, 401 (1975). In other words, throughout the course
of the action, the aggrieved party must suffer or be
threatened with actual injury caused by the defendant.
Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477.
adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon "the
continuing existence of a live and acute
controversy." Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S.
452, 459 (1974) (emphasis in original). "The rule in
federal cases is that an actual controversy must be extant at
all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is
filed." Id. at n.10 (citations omitted).
"Past exposure to illegal conduct is insufficient to
sustain a present case or controversy ... if unaccompanied by
continuing, present adverse effects." Rosenberg v.
Meese, 622 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96
(1974)); see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, Civil
No.3:CV-02-465, slip op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002)
to a copy of Petitioner's BOP inmate locator records,
which has been submitted by the Respondent, Petitioner was
released from federal custody on July 29, 2016. See
Doc. 13-1. Since Dominguez has been granted release from
federal custody, relief is no longer available with respect
to his claims seeking recalculation of the service of his
federal sentence and reinstatement of good time credit. As
such, under the principles set forth in Steffel,
this matter is subject to dismissal as moot since it no
longer presents an existing case or controversy. An
appropriate Order will enter.
 The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is
listed as the Respondent in the ...