finding that “[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s 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.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s 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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARY RHINES, :
Petitioner : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-0407
v : (JUDGE MANNION)
THOMAS MCGINLEY,
Superintendent :
Respondent
:
MEMORANDUM
I. Background
On March 9, 2020, Petitioner, Gary Rhines, a former federal inmate,
filed the above captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §2241. (Doc. 1, petition).
Rhines’ petition states in toto:
Request the Bureau of Prisons to provide defendant when his
federal sentence commenced and was the sentence imposed in
regards to program statement 5880.28, Chapter 1, pp. 12-13.
In regards to commencement of sentence, the BOP generally
determines the date upon which a federal sentence commences,
see BOP Program Statement 5880.28, Chapter 1, pp. 12-13 and
recodified 18 U.S.C. §3585.
Id.
For relief, Petitioner requests:
To verify and clarify the commencement of his federal sentence
and also to contact Pens. Board of Probation and Parole Board
secretary with this information, 1101 S. Front Street, Harrisburg,
Pa. 17104, Suite 5100.
Id.
A response and traverse having been filed, the petition is ripe for
disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the instant petition will be
dismissed as moot.
II. Discussion
According to BOP records, Rhines’ federal sentence commenced on
July 1, 2004, the date it was imposed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, at case 4:01-cr-00310-JEJ. (Doc. 8-1 at
8, Public Information Inmate Data). Rhines was awarded 1,043 days of prior
custody credit by the BOP. Id. On July 24, 2019, Rhines’ sentence was
reduced to time served and he was released from federal custody. Id.
Respondent indicates that a copy of their response, containing Rhines’
federal sentence information, was served upon the Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole. (See Doc. 8 at 5, Certificate of Service).
The case or controversy requirement of Article III, §2 of the United
States Constitution subsists through all stages of federal judicial
proceedings. Parties must continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome
of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477–78
(1990); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). In other words,
throughout the course of the action, the aggrieved party must suffer or be
threatened with actual injury caused by the defendant. Lewis, 494 U.S. at
477.
The adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon “the
continuing existence of a live and acute controversy.” Steffel v. Thompson,
415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974) (emphasis in original). “The rule in federal cases
is that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not
merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Id. at n.10 (citations omitted). “Past
exposure to illegal conduct is insufficient to sustain a present case or
controversy ... if unaccompanied by continuing, present adverse effects.”
Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing
O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974)). “[A] petition for habeas corpus
relief generally 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, 631 (1982).
In the instant case, because the Bureau of Prisons has complied with
the relief requested in the instant petition1, there is no further relief available
to Rhines and his habeas petition has been rendered moot. See Blanciak v.
Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (finding that “[i]f
developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a
plaintiff’s 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.”). See also Rodriguez-Leon v. Warden, 602 F. App’x 854 (3d Cir.
2015); Scott v. Schuylkill FCI, 298 F. App’x 202 (3d Cir. 2008); Scott v. Holt,
297 F. App’x 154 (3d Cir. 2008). An appropriate Order will enter.
1 To the extent that Petitioner raises claims, in his traverse (Doc. 9),
which challenge his current state parole violator sentence, he is free to file
any appropriate state remedies challenging his state sentence prior to filing
another petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging such sentence.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
will be DISMISSED. An appropriate order will follow.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Date: October 16, 2020
20-0407-01