United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. Mariani United States District Judge.
John Reznickcheck ("Petitioner"), is a former
inmate who was previously housed at the State Correctional
Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. Petitioner
initiated this action with the filing of a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1).
Therein, Petitioner alleges that the Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole violated his constitutional rights by
"illegally" detaining him. (/of. at p. 1).
Preliminary review of the petition has been undertaken,
see R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R. 4, and, for
the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed
Standard of Review - Screening
corpus petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must
be promptly screened and are subject to summary dismissal
"[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court." Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts; Pattern v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 156, 158
(M.D. Pa. 1979). "A petition may be dismissed without
review of an answer 'when the petition is frivolous, or
obviously lacking in merit, or where. . . the necessary facts
can be determined from the petition itself'"
Belt v. Seism, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97052, *2-3
(M.D. Pa. 2010) (quoting Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d
134, 141 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 906
September 20, 2016, Petitioner was arrested on charges of
indirect criminal contempt due to violation of a Protection
from Abuse order. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner alleges that his
due process rights were violated because he was not afforded
a detention hearing or a preliminary hearing, and he was held
for sixty-two days without seeing his parole agent.
(Id.). For relief, Petitioner seeks, inter
alia, immediate release from custody. (Id. at
III of the Constitution provides that the "judicial
Power shall extend to... Cases... [and] to
Controversies." U.S. CONST, art. Ill. § 2.
"This grant of authority embodies a fundamental
limitation restricting the federal courts to the adjudication
of 'actual, ongoing cases or controversies.'
Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186,
192-93 (3d Cir. 2001). The mootness doctrine is centrally
concerned with the court's ability to grant effective
relief: 'If developments occur during the course of
adjudication that eliminate a plaintiffs personal stake in
the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to
grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as
moot.' Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 556
F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
the requirement that an action involve a live case or
controversy extends through all phases of litigation,
including appellate review. See Khodara Envtl.,
Inc., 237 F.3d at 193 (citing Lewis v. Continental
Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990)." County of
Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d
Cir. 2001). Finally, federal habeas corpus review is
available only "where the deprivation of rights is such
that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of
detention." Learner v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532,
540 (3d Cir. 2002). Once a petitioner has been released from
custody, "some continuing injury, also referred to as a
collateral consequence, must exist for the action to
continue." Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142,
147 (3d Cir. 2009).
instant petition, Petitioner seeks immediate release from
custody. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Since filing his federal habeas
petition, it is clear that Petitioner has been released from
custody. See Victim Information and Notification
Everyday, available at
https://www.vinelink.com/. The petition for writ of habeas corpus
has been rendered moot by virtue of Petitioner's release
from custody. Moreover, Petitioner has not alleged nor can
the Court perceive of any collateral consequences to maintain
his habeas petition. As there is no longer a live case or
controversy, and Petitioner has received the relief he
requested, namely release, the petition for writ of habeas
corpus will be dismissed as moot.
Certificate of Appealabilitv
to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability
("COA"), an appeal may not be taken from a final
order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A COA may
issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the
district court's resolution of his constitutional claims
or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
"When the district court denies a habeas petition on
procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's
underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the
prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, jurists of
reason would not find the disposition of this case debatable.
Accordingly, a COA will not issue.
on the foregoing, Petitioner's application (Doc. 1) for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 will