“[M]ootness, however it may have come about, simply deprives us of our power to act; there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.”
How later courts described this case
- “[M]ootness, however it may have come about, simply deprives us of our power to act; there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAQUAN MANN, )
)
Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 2:24-1015
)
v. ) Judge Mark R. Hornak
) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge
PA PAROLE BOARD, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1) filed by Saquan Mann
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mann, who is proceeding pro se, is challenging the decision by the
Pennsylvania Parole Board (“Board”) to deny him parole. It is respectfully recommended that the
Court dismiss the Petition because it is moot and deny a certificate of appealability.
II. REPORT
A. Relevant Background
When Mann filed the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus he was in the custody of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”), which housed him at SCI Pine Grove. He was
serving a term of imprisonment for the crimes of, as he described it, “drug delivery resulting in
death.” (ECF 1 at 1.) In the Petition, Mann challenged the Board’s decision denying him parole.
As relief, he sought an order from this Court directing Respondents (the Board and the
Superintendent of SCI Pine Grove) to immediately release him to parole.1 (Id. at 15.)
1 Mann also seeks money damages (ECF 1 at 15), but that type of relief is not available in a habeas proceeding. Marine
v. Quintana, 347 F. App’x 736 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming that money damages are not available in a habeas action).
Respondents filed an Answer (ECF 6) in which they asserted that the Court should deny
the Petition for various reasons, including that Mann failed to exhaust his available state court
remedies.
The Court takes judicial notice of the publicly available information provided by the
records department at SCI Pine Grove as well as the DOC’s online Inmate and Parolee Locator,
which is available at https://www.pa.gov/en/agencies/cor/inmate-parolee-locator.html. They
confirm that Mann has served his full sentence and has been released from the custody of the DOC.
B. Discussion
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to challenge the legal authority under which a
prisoner is held in custody. See, e.g., Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013)
(citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). It is a well-established principle that
federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide an issue unless it presents a live case or controversy as
required by Article III, § 2, of the Constitution. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). “‘To
invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an
actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’”
Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (emphasis added) (quoting Lewis v.
Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990), which cited Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,
750-51 (1984) and Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church
& State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-73 (1982)). “The case or controversy requirement continues
through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate, and requires that parties have
a personal stake in the outcome.” Id. (citing Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477-78).
Thus, if developments occur during the litigation that eliminate a petitioner’s personal stake
in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from granting effective relief, the case must be dismissed
as moot. Id. at 147-48; Keitel, 729 F.3d at 280. That is the case here. Mann is no longer
incarcerated. Thus, there is no relief that this Court can provide to him and this habeas case is now
moot. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 18 (“[M]ootness, however it may have come about, simply deprives us
of our power to act; there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.”)
C. Certificate of Appealability
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) codified standards
governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court’s
disposition of a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner. It provides that “[u]nless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals
from…the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises
out of process issued by a State court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). It also provides that “[a]
certificate of appealability may issue...only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2).
Mann is not entitled to a certificate of appealability because jurists of reason would not
find it debatable that all of his claims should be dismissed as moot. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss the Petition
because it is moot and deny a certificate of appealability. Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, the parties are allowed
fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file objections to this Report and
Recommendation. Failure to do so will waive the right to appeal.2 EEOC v. City of Long Branch,
866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017); Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).
Dated: December 23, 2025 /s/ Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 Mann has not updated his address of record. Therefore, the Court will mail this Report and Recommendation to his
address of record at SCI Pine Grove, since that is the last known address he provided to the Court.