The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL HOBSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-342
Petitioner SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
v. ) United States District Judge
)
SUPERINTENDENT THOMPSON, et al., Chiet United States Magistrate fudge
Respondents REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
) ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
) CORPUS (ECF NO. 4)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by
Petitioner Daniel Hobson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF No. 4, be denied as moot. It is further
recommended that no certificate of appealability issue.
Il. REPORT
A. Procedural History
Petitioner is deemed to have commenced this litigation on November 30, 2024, when he
mailed his petition. ECF No. 1 at 15. Petitioner was then serving a sentence of imprisonment
imposed on February 26, 1991, by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County at Docket Number
CP-25-MD-0001761-1990.
Petitioner was paroled in 2013 but was recommitted as a convicted parole violator in 2021.
The Pennsylvania Parole Board (“the Board”) subsequently denied Petitioner parole on multiple
occasions, including on September 9, 2024.
The pending Petition was docketed on May 19, 2025. ECF No. 4. Therein, Petitioner asserts
that the Board’s September 9, 2024, decision to deny him parole violated his constitutional rights.
Respondents filed an Answer, ECF No. 7, and an Addendum, ECF No. 11.
In the Addendum, Respondents attach, inter alia, a September 10, 2025, decision of the
Board granting Petitioner parole at the docket number sub judice.' ECF No. 11-2.
The petition is ripe for review.
B. Jurisdiction
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court may 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). It is Petitioner’s burden to prove that he is entitled to the writ. See, e.g.,
Vickers v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 858 F.3d 841, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2017).
C. Analysis
It is a well-established principle that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to decide an
issue unless it presents a live case or controversy as required by Article III, § 2, of the United States
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) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)).
“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.” /d. (citing Lewis,
494 USS. at 477-78).
board to grant Petitioner parole at that docket number as well, ECF No. 11-4; however, that matter is not before the
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 being able to grant effective relief, the case must
be dismissed as moot. Id. at 147-48; Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013).
Such is the case here, where this petition is moot for two reasons.
First, because the only relief that a court can grant on a challenge such as the one Petitioner
raises is a new parole hearing, a subsequent hearing held by the Parole Board renders an inmate’s
challenge to the prior parole decision moot. See Weiler v. Overmyer, Civ. A. No. 21-303, 2024
WL 3327771 (W.D. Pa. 2024) (collecting cases).
Petitioner challenges the Board’s September 9, 2024, decision. The only relief this Court
could have awarded to Petitioner based on the claims in his petition would have been to order a
new parole hearing. However, he received an additional parole hearing in 2025 after the filing of
this habeas petition. Therefore, his challenge to the Board’s prior denial of parole is moot.
Secondly, following that 2025 hearing, the Board granted Petitioner parole. For this
additional reason, this Court cannot provide Petitioner with any habeas relief.
Accordingly, the petition should be denied as moot.
D. Certificate of Appealability
AEDPA codified standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for
appellate review of a district court’s disposition of a habeas petition. It provides that “[a] certificate
of appealability may issue...only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability because jurists of reason would not find it debatable that his claims should be
dismissed as moot. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
WI. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the parties may seek
review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within
fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the
objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate
rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara vy. Frank, 488 F.3d
187 (3d Cir. 2007).
Ké A. | eke
Dated: April 27, 2026 Chief United States Magistrate Judge