Brome v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAMEON BROME, No. 4:18-CV-02129 Petitioner, (Judge Brann) v. SUPERINTENDENT, SCI DALLAS, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION DECEMBER 21, 2020 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Dameon Brome’s petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of his parole.1 In the petition, Petitioner seeks his immediate release.2 Respondents submitted an answer3 and have since filed a suggestion of mootness, explaining that Petitioner has been now been released on parole.4 Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States shall extend only to “cases” and “controversies.”5 “A case becomes moot— and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III—‘when 1 Doc. 1. 2 See id. at 16. 3 Doc. 33. 4 Doc. 37. 5 See U.S. Const. art. III; see also Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’”6 “The mootness doctrine is centrally concerned with the court’s ability to grant effective relief: ‘[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.’”7 Here, Petitioner has received the relief he was requesting—his release from prison on parole. Because the Court can grant no further relief requested by Petitioner, the petition is now moot and must be dismissed. For the reasons set forth above, the petition will be dismissed as moot. An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT: s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge 6 Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982)). 7 See Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590, 596 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001).