# ARMSTRONG v. TICE

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · September 26, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11145482

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 26, 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/11145482

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KAREEM ARMSTRONG, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-76
) Judge Nora Barry Fischer
ERIC TICE, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto
PROBATION AND PAROLE, )
)
Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2025, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on May 18, 2022,
(Docket No. 3), recommending that the § 2254 habeas petition filed by Petitioner Kareem
Armstrong against Eric Tice and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, wherein he
challenges the denial of parole and seeks release from state custody to parole, be denied, without
a certificate of appealability, Petitioner’s objections which were timely filed within 14 days as
directed by the Magistrate Judge, (Docket No. 5), the matter having been reassigned to the
undersigned for prompt disposition, and upon independent review of the record and de novo
consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of May 18, 2022, (Docket
No. 3), which is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, as supplemented herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections (Docket No. 5) are
OVERRULED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED, for the reasons
set forth in the Report and Recommendation. It also appears to the Court from the DOC Inmate
Locator that the Petitioner has been released on parole such that the Petition (Docket No. 1) must
be DISMISSED, as moot, see e.g., Malik v. Warden Loretto FCI, No. 23-2281, 2024 WL 3649570,
at *2 (3d Cir. Aug. 5, 2024) (“Because Malik had been released to prerelease custody, his request

for release to such custody was moot.”); Lee v. Superintendent Greene SCI, No. 15-2412, 2016 WL
11786206, at *1 (3d Cir. Jan. 13, 2016) (denying certificate of appealability to petitioner regarding
habeas petition challenging denial of parole because he was released from custody on parole and
did not show any collateral consequences such that his petition was moot); Fitzgerald v.
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 2024 WL 4755397, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2024)
(“Fitzgerald is no longer incarcerated. He was granted parole in July 2024 and was released to
parole in October 2024. Accordingly, there is no relief that this Court can provide to him and this
habeas case is now moot.”);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue as Petitioner has
not made a substantial showing of a denial of a Constitutional right; and,

FINALLY, an appropriate Judgment follows.

s/Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
Senior U.S. District Judge
cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto

cc: KAREEM ARMSTRONG
FC1437
SCI SOMERSET
1590 Walters Mill Road
Somerset, PA 15510-0001 (via first class mail)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11145482. Public record. Not legal advice.