Jordan v. Hood

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 29 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MARK JORDAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 03-1092
(D. Colorado)
ROBERT A. HOOD, Warden, ADX, (D.Ct. No. 03-Z-144)
Florence, Colorado,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER *
Before BRISCOE, O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges and HEATON **, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Appellee Robert A. Hood’s Motion to
Dismiss for Mootness. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
On June 3, 1999, Appellant Mark Jordan was accused of participating in a
murder which occurred at the Florence, Colorado, federal prison where he was
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders
and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
The Honorable Joe Heaton, United States District Judge for the Western District
**
of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
being housed as an inmate. On approximately June 13, 1999, he was transferred
to administrative segregation (solitary confinement) pending the investigation of
his role in the murder. Almost four years later, on January 3, 2003, Jordan filed a
pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking a
declaration that his constitutional rights have been violated and an injunction
directing his release from administrative segregation or criminal charges to be
filed against him. The district court denied the petition, concluding that because
Jordan was challenging the conditions of his confinement rather than the
execution of his sentence, his claims must be brought under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This
appeal followed.
After initial briefing and oral argument, Hood filed a status report in light
of Jordan’s indictment for murder on May 19, 2004. He subsequently filed a
Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. In the motion, Hood indicated Jordan had been
released from administrative segregation.
This appeal is moot based on Jordan having been released from solitary
confinement and indicted. Nothing in Jordan’s response to the motion to dismiss
convinces us to the contrary. Jordan does not seek release from confinement or a
shortened sentence, relief cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See McIntosh v.
United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). What he
-2-
does seek, even if cognizable under § 2241, has been granted. See Thournir v.
Buchanan, 710 F.2d 1461, 1463 (10th Cir. 1983) (“Generally, an appeal should be
dismissed as moot when events occur that prevent the appellate court from
granting any effective relief.”). 1
Based on the above, we DISMISS.
Entered by the Court:
Terrence L. O’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
1
Similarly, Jordan’s request for declaratory relief is also unavailable. Because this
case does not involve a continuing violation or practice, a declaratory judgment would
serve no purpose in this case. See So. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724,
730 (10th Cir. 1997) (“For the same reasons that injunctive relief is not available, a
declaratory judgment also is not available. A declaratory judgment would serve no
purpose in this case.”).
-3-