United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
R. Hornak, Judge
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus filed by former federal prisoner Raheim Howell
(the "Petitioner") be dismissed as moot and that
this case be closed.
September 4, 2009, the Petitioner was sentenced in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York to
a term of 120 months of imprisonment on his conviction for
Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute and to
Distribute 50 Grams or More of Cocaine Base. In his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 4), which he filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Petitioner contended
that the Bureau of Prisons (the "BOP"), which is
the agency responsible for implementing and applying federal
law concerning the computation of federal sentences,
United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992), erred
in computing his federal sentence. In the answer (ECF No.
10), the Respondent asserted that the BOP properly computed
the Petitioner's federal sentence in accordance with the
federal sentencing statutes and BOP policy.
Petitioner's federal sentence expired on May 21, 2018.
(ECF No. 10-2 at 4). The BOP's inmate locator, which is
available online at www.bop.gov and of which this
Court may take judicial notice, confirms that he was released
on that date.
It is a
well-established principle that federal courts do not have
jurisdiction to decide an issue unless it presents a live
case or controversy as required by Article III, § 2, of
the Constitution. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7
(1998). "'To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal
court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with,
an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.'" Burkey v. Marberry, 556
F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (emphasis added) (quoting
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477
(1990), which cited Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,
750-51 (1984) and Valley Forge Christian College v.
Americans United for Separation of Church & State,
Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-73 (1982)). "The case or
controversy requirement continues through all stages of
federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate, and
requires that parties have a personal stake in the
outcome." Id. (citing Lewis, 494 U.S.
at 477-78). Thus, if developments occur during the course of
adjudication that eliminate a petitioner's personal stake
in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able
to grant effective relief, the case must be dismissed as
moot. Id. at 147-48; Keitel v.
Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013).
the Petitioner completed his term of imprisonment on May 21,
2018, there is no longer any habeas relief that this Court
can provide to him. Therefore, this case is now moot.
Spencer, 523 U.S. at 18 ("[M]ootness, however
it may have come about, simply deprives us of our power to
act; there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were
disposed to do so.").
foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot and
that this case be closed. Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the
Local Civil Rules, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days
from the date of this Order to file objections to this Report
and Recommendation. ...