# Brown v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval)

> District Court, M.D. Florida · March 29, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10115647

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** March 29, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10115647

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

QUINTION M. BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:24-cv-33-MMH-PDB

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.
___________________________________

ORDER
Petitioner Quintion M. Brown, a former detainee of the Duval County
Jail, filed a pro se document titled “Writ of Heabus [sic] Corpus (28 USCS §
2254)” (Petition; Doc. 1),1 on January 10, 2024. Brown alleges that, on
September 20, 2023, the state court sentenced him to eight months in the
Duval County Jail with the possibility of early termination upon completion of
the Matrix House Treatment Program. Petition at 1. According to Brown, the
Matrix House Treatment Program denied him admittance “due to [his]
history.” Id. at 2. Therefore, on October 27, 2023, Brown filed a motion to
reduce, correct, or modify his sentence in the state court “because the sentence

1 The Court construes Brown’s filing as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
cannot be carried out”; the motion remains pending. Id. As relief, Brown asks
the Court to order his immediate release. Id.
Brown appears to challenge the length of the state court sentence based
on his inability to satisfy the terms of early release. See generally id. However,

since the filing of the Petition, Brown has been released from custody without
further supervision.2 See Inmate Search, Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office,
available at https://inmatesearch.jaxsheriff.org/InmateSearch (last visited
March 26, 2024). Because Brown challenges his now expired sentence, rather

than his underlying conviction, no collateral consequences exist for the Court
to consider. His release from custody has rendered this action moot. See
Hernandez v. Wainwright, 796 F.2d 389, 390 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)
(affirming district court’s dismissal of § 2254 petition as moot where petitioner

attacked the length of his confinement, not the underlying conviction); Biester
v. Lanier, 249 F. App’x 782, 783 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (dismissing as
moot § 2241 petitioner’s claims based on the denials of parole, pre-release
placement in transitional centers, and work incentive credits where petitioner

was released from custody during the pendency of the action). Accordingly, the
Petition is due to be denied as moot.

2 As of the date of this Order, Brown has not updated his address with the
Court.
2
Therefore, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot and this case is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without
prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.
3. If Brown appeals the dismissal of this case, the Court denies a
certificate of appealability.? Because the Court has determined that a
certificate of appealability is not warranted, the Clerk shall terminate from the
pending motions report any motion to proceed on appeal as a pauper that may
be filed in this case. Such termination shall serve as a denial of the motion.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 29th day of
March, 2024.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge

3 The Court should issue a certificate of appealability only if a petitioner makes
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
To make this substantial showing, Brown “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists
would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong, Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003)
(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Upon due consideration,
the Court will deny a certificate of appealability.

Jax-9 3/26
c: Quintion M. Brown, #2023020016

4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10115647. Public record. Not legal advice.