The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAMEON BROME, No. 4:18-CV-02129
Petitioner, (Judge Brann)
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, SCI DALLAS,
et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DECEMBER 21, 2020
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Dameon Brome’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of his
parole.1 In the petition, Petitioner seeks his immediate release.2 Respondents
submitted an answer3 and have since filed a suggestion of mootness, explaining that
Petitioner has been now been released on parole.4
Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United
States shall extend only to “cases” and “controversies.”5 “A case becomes moot—
and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III—‘when
1 Doc. 1.
2 See id. at 16.
3 Doc. 33.
4 Doc. 37.
5 See U.S. Const. art. III; see also Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)
the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome.’”6 “The mootness doctrine is centrally concerned with the
court’s ability to grant effective relief: ‘[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.’”7
Here, Petitioner has received the relief he was requesting—his release from
prison on parole. Because the Court can grant no further relief requested by
Petitioner, the petition is now moot and must be dismissed.
For the reasons set forth above, the petition will be dismissed as moot. An
appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
6 Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478,
481 (1982)).
7 See Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590, 596 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting County of
Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001).