The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SHAWN PREWITT,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 3:23-CV-54-NJR
D. SPROUL,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondent D. Sproul.
(Doc. 6). Respondent seeks the dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
by Petitioner Shawn Prewitt. (Doc. 1).
On January 10, 2023, Prewitt filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging the denial of his eligibility to apply earned time credits toward his release
under the First Step Act (“FSA”) by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), as well as the method
used to calculate those credits. (Id.). According to Respondent, after the Petition was filed,
the BOP recalculated Prewitt’s sentence and applied his earned time credits under the
FSA, leading to Prewitt’s release from BOP custody on February 24, 2023. (Docs. 6-1, 6-
2). Because Prewitt received the relief he requested and is no longer in BOP custody,
Respondent argues, a justiciable case or controversy no longer exists and the Petition
must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1
1 Prewitt did not respond to the motion, although he likely did not receive a copy of it. Respondent’s
motion was filed after Prewitt’s release from prison, and Prewitt did not provide the Court with his new
Article II of the United States Constitution grants the judicial power to “cases”
and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “In general a case becomes moot when the
issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Eichwedel v. Curry, 700 F.3d 275, 278 (7th Cir. 2012). In a habeas corpus
proceeding, to present a justiciable controversy, a petitioner must demonstrate that he
“is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 611 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). “A habeas
action becomes moot if the Court can no longer ‘affect the duration of [the petitioner’s]
custody.”” Johnson v. Warden, No. 121CV03106JPHMPB, 2023 WL 1975040, at *2 (S.D. Ind.
Jan. 11, 2023) (quoting White v. Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir. 2001)).
Here, Prewitt received the relief he sought, and he is no longer incarcerated. Thus,
the Court can no longer affect the duration of Prewitt’s custody. Accordingly, this action
is moot and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id. (citing
Eichwedel, 700 F.3d at 278; Diaz v. Duckworth, 143 F.3d 345, 347 (7th Cir. 1998)).
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss as Moot filed by
Respondent D. Sproul (Doc. 6) and DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 18, 2023
wtp AM lacing D
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
address as he was ordered to do. (See Doc. 2).
Page 2 of 2