Cates v. Stevens

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

LARRY D. CATES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No.: 3:20-CV-271-RLJ-HBG

)

CHIEF STEVENS, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Larry D. Cates is a Tennessee inmate proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 2]. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss

the petition [Doc. 10], and Petitioner has failed to timely respond to the motion. See E.D. Tenn.

L.R. 7.1. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent’s motion [Doc. 10] will be GRANTED,

and the instant petition will be DISMISSED as moot.

I. ALLEGATIONS OF PETITION

Petitioner was housed at the Knox County Jail awaiting a parole revocation hearing at the

time he filed the instant petition [Doc. 2]. Asserting that Knox County has refused to schedule the

revocation hearing and is holding him indefinitely, Petitioner requests that this Court order Knox

County to either release him or provide him with a revocation hearing [Id. at 8].

II. DISCUSSION

According to the documents submitted in support of Respondent’s motion, Petitioner

received a parole revocation hearing on August 12, 2020 [Doc. 9-2]. Therefore, the remedy sought

in the habeas petition has been provided, and there is no relief that the Court may grant on the

claim raised in the petition that has not already been received. Accordingly, the instant habeas

corpus petition is moot. See, e.g., Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 512 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting

court does not have jurisdiction to consider case or issue that has “lost its character as a present,

live controversy” and lacks “an actual injury that is capable of being redressed by a favorable

judicial decision”) (citations omitted).1

III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) before he may appeal this

Court’s decision denying federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A COA will not issue

unless a petitioner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” of any

claim rejected on its merits, which he may do by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists would find

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). To obtain a COA on a claim that has

been rejected on procedural grounds, a petitioner must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Applying this standard, the Court concludes that a COA should

be denied in this case.

1 To the extent Petitioner challenges the parole revocation itself, the Court notes that

Petitioner must exhaust such a claim in State court prior to seeking federal relief. See, e.g., Phillips

v. Ct. of Common Pleas, Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 668 F.3d 804, 810 n.4 (6th Cir 2012). In Tennessee,

a prisoner may challenge a parole board decision through writ of certiorari in a trial court, which

is then appealable to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. See Strader v. Traughber, No. M2007-

00248-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 5204431, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2008), perm. app. denied

(Tenn. Aug. 17, 2009). Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has exhausted a challenge to his

parole revocation in State court, and therefore, any challenge to the parole revocation must be

dismissed for want of exhaustion.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Respondent’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 10] will be

GRANTED, and the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus will be DISMISSED AS MOOT.

A COA from this decision will be DENIED.

Further, the Court CERTIFIES any appeal from this action would not be taken in good

faith and would be totally frivolous. Therefore, this Court will DENY Petitioner leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on any subsequent appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24.

AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.

ENTER:

s/ Leon Jordan

United States District Judge