Moore v. Neely ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION KENYNIA MOORE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 7:23-cv-536-ACA-NAD ) KIMBERLY NEELY, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Kenynia Moore filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that if her First Step Act earned time credits were properly applied, she would be eligible for immediate release or prerelease custody. (See doc. 1 at 4– 5, 8–10). On January 8, 2024, the magistrate judge entered a report, recommending that the court deny Ms. Moore’s petition. (See doc. 11). The magistrate judge sent that report and recommendation to Ms. Moore at her address of record, and the United States Postal Service returned the documents to the court as “Refused.” (See doc. 12 at 12). A review of the Bureau of Prisons’ online inmate locator indicated that the Bureau had released Ms. Moore from prison and transferred her to prerelease custody. (See doc. 13 at 1). Based on Ms. Moore’s release, the magistrate judge ordered the parties to show cause why Ms. Moore’s petition should not be dismissed as moot. (See id. at 2). The government confirmed that Ms. Moore was in prerelease custody. (See doc. 14 at 1). The government further confirmed that it had no objection to the court dismissing Ms. Moore’s petition as moot. (Id.). Ms. Moore did not file a response, and her deadline to do so (see doc. 13 at 2) has expired. Federal courts may only consider “cases or controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “[A] federal court has no authority ‘to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (citation omitted). When an action no longer contains an active case or controversy, that action is moot. Adler v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). Questions of justiciability are not answered “simply by looking to the state of affairs at the time the suit was filed. Rather, the Supreme Court has made clear that the controversy ‘must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’” Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189–90 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)). Here, Ms. Moore requested that she receive time credits that would make her eligible for release or to be placed in prerelease custody. (See doc. 1 at 4–5, 8–10). The Bureau of Prisons therefore has provided Ms. Moore with her requested relief. (Compare doc. 13 at 1, with doc. 14 at 1). And no live controversy remains. Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc., 662 F.3d at 1189; see also, e.g., Rosario v. Stone, CV 321-048, 2021 WL 6066411, *1—2 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2021) (holding that where the Bureau of Prisons credited the petitioner with the days requested in his § 2241 petition, the case was rendered moot).! Mootness is jurisdictional, requiring that a federal court dismiss a moot action. Djadju v. Vega, 32 F.4th 1102, 1106 (11th Cir. 2022); Sierra Club v. United States E.P.A,, 315 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the court WILL DISMISS the petition for writ of habeas corpus AS MOOT. The court will enter a separate final order. DONE and ORDERED this February 26, 2024. lc UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE | Although this case is not binding authority, see Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 428 (2011), the court finds it persuasive.