# FIGUEROA v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PAROLE AND PROBATION

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · March 5, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10817563

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 5, 2025
- **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/10817563

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
REYNALDO FIGUEROA, )
)
Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 22-36]
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
V. )
) Re: ECF No. 8
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PAROLE )
AND PROBATION, and BARRY SMITH, )
)
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by Reynaldo Figueroa (“Petitioner”). ECF No. 8. For the reasons stated herein, the Petition
will be dismissed, and a certificate of appealability will be denied.!
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner initiated the present matter by filing the petition on or about March 7, 2022. ECF
No. 1-1. See also Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (‘we hold that a pro se
prisoner’s habeas petition is deemed filed at the moment he delivers it to prison officials for
mailing to the district court.”). He also submitted a Brief in Support of the petition. ECF No. 12.
Respondents filed a Response. ECF No. 15. Petitioner filed a Reply. ECF No. 17. The Petition
is ripe for review,

! Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States
Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment, with direct
review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit if an appeal is filed. ECF Nos.
2, 21.

Il, ANALYSIS
28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal habeas statute applicable to prisoners in custody pursuant to

a state court judgment, permits a federal court to grant a state prisoner a writ of habeas corpus “on
the ground that he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution...of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a). At the time he filed this petition, Petitioner was a state prisoner incarcerated at
the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale serving an aggregate term of imprisonment of three
to six years imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of York County following his convictions of

escape and a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act at Docket Numbers CP-67-CR-000025 8-2019
and CP-67-CR-0001294-2019. In his petition, Petitioner seeks immediate parole, asserting that
the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole improperly denied him parole in violation of his
constitutional rights. ECF No. 8.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires that there be a case and controversy in order
for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90 (2013).
This requirement must exist at the beginning of litigation and remain throughout all stages of
litigation. Id. at 90-91. If during the course of the litigation, events that transpire which eliminate
the ability of the court to grant any effectual relief, the case is moot and must therefore be
dismissed. Knox v. Service Employees Intern. Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012).
Events have transpired during the course of this litigation which eliminate the Court's
ability to grant the relief Petitioner seeks. Petitioner’s maximum sentence date was November 21,
2024, six years after he was arrested on the charges in question. ECF No. 15 at 2; ECF No, 15-2
at 2-3. His sentence has expired. Indeed, a search of the Inmate/Parolee Locator on the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections website reveals that Petitioner is not in its custody at this

time.” Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant petition, and it will
be dismissed as moot.
Il. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A certificate of appealability will be denied, as Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: March @ , 2025 BY THE COURT:

bebe fe ORS Fo ot
CMipunees# A PL
MAWREEN P.KELLY * //
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

> Petitioner has not updated his address with the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10817563. Public record. Not legal advice.