Naser Dar Eghrayyeb v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 426 F. App'x 424 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 11a0463n.06
    No. 08-3770                                   FILED
    Jul 08, 2011
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    NASER DAR EGHRAYYEB,                          )
    )
    Petitioner-Appellant,                  )
    )
    v.                                            )   ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
    )   STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,                    )   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
    )
    Respondent-Appellee.                   )
    Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Naser Dar Eghrayyeb, filed this appeal from the
    district court’s order denying his pro se habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
    in which the petitioner claimed that his rights were violated when he was classified as an
    inmate presenting special needs for management and that he is entitled to relief under the
    Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), despite the fact that BOP records are exempt from the Act.
    The district court found that there was no constitutional violation alleged or established and
    dismissed the petition.
    Petitioner Eghrayyeb filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2008, and a brief in this
    court on April 20, 2009. However, he was released from federal prison on December 18,
    2009. Given the nature of his claims and the fact that he is no longer incarcerated, we
    would be unable to supply a remedy, even if we found that the claims had merit. It thus
    No. 08-3770
    Eghrayyeb v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
    appears that the appeal is moot and, therefore, that we lack jurisdiction to review it. See
    Calderon v. Moore, 
    518 U.S. 149
    , 150 (1996) (per curiam).           Eghrayyeb’s asserted
    “collateral consequence,” that the BOP’s classification of Eghrayyeb as a terrorist would
    subject him to torture and disparaging treatment, does not permit review because it is
    based not on proof of a “concrete and continuing injury,” Spencer v Kemna, 
    523 U.S. 1
    ,
    7 (1998), but on mere speculation.
    For these reasons, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions to
    vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-3770

Citation Numbers: 426 F. App'x 424

Judges: Daughtrey, Moore, Per Curiam, Stranch

Filed Date: 7/8/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024