United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. Mariani United States District Judge.
September 30, 2019, Petitioner Gabriel Vavages
("Vavages"), filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his
sentence computation. (Doc. 1). Vavages claims the Bureau of
Prisons ("BOP") miscalculated his sentence by
failing to include good conduct time, which caused him to be
detained beyond the length of his sentence. [Id.).
At the time his petition was filed, Vavages was confined at
the United States Penitentiary, Canaan, Pennsylvania,
(Id.). For relief, Vavages requests immediate
release from custody. (Id. at p. 2).
November 14, 2019, Respondent filed a suggestion of mootness
stating that Vavages was released from the custody of the BOP
on November 5, 2019. (Doc. 9). Thus, Respondent asserts that
no further relief is available to Vavages and the habeas
petition should be dismissed as moot. (Id.). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the petition
habeas review under § 2241 "allows a federal
prisoner to challenge the 'execution' of his
sentence." Woodall v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241-43 (3d Cir. 2005). Habeas
corpus review is available "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). Generally, a petition for habeas corpus
relief becomes moot when a prisoner is released from custody
before the court has addressed the merits of the petition.
Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71
L.Ed.2d 508 (1982); Scott v. Holt, 297 Fed.Appx. 154
(3d Cir. 2008) (non-precedential).
situation, the relevant inquiry is whether the case still
presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of
the United States Constitution. Spencer v. Kemna,
523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998);
Rendell v. Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236, 24042 (3d Cir.
2007). This means that, throughout the litigation, an actual
controversy, possible of redress by a favorable judicial
decision, must exist. United States v. Kissinger,
309 F.3d 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2002). The crucial issue is
"some concrete and continuing injury other than the
now-ended incarceration or parole." Spencer,
523 U.S. at 7, 118 S.Ct. at 983. Collateral consequences are
presumed to exist when a habeas petitioner challenges his
underlying criminal conviction. Spencer, 523 U.S. at
7-8, 118 S.Ct. at 983. By contrast, challenges to the
execution of a sentence that has already been served will not
be presumed. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 12-14, 118 S.Ct.
has filed a suggestion of mootness, citing Vavages'
November 5, 2019 release from custody. (Doc. 9, Suggestion of
Mootness; see also BOP Inmate Locator). Once Vavages
served his term of imprisonment, and was released upon its
completion, his good time credits ceased to have any effect
"either to shorten the period of supervision or to
shorten the period of imprisonment which the offender may be
required to serve for violation of parole or mandatory
release." 28 C.F.R. § 2.35(b); see also 28
C.F.R. § 523.2(c). Under these circumstances, Vavages
cannot demonstrate any continuing collateral consequences or
injury because his release eliminates the Court's ability
to grant him any relief. See Burkey v. Marberry, 556
F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (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"); see also Scott, 297
Fed.Appx. at 156 ("Because [the petitioner] has served
his complete term of imprisonment, [he] cannot show some
concrete and continuing injury from the loss of good time
credits."). As no live controversy remains, the Court
will dismiss Vavages' habeas petition as moot. See
Scott v. Schuylkill FCI, 298 Fed.Appx. 202 (3d Cir.
separate Order shall issue.
Upon entering Petitioner's
identification number, 02734-196, into the BOP Online Inmate
Locator System, his status was returned as
"released" on November 5, 2019. See