Case ID: f-appx_173/html/0336-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregory Scott COURTNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-51816.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 24, 2006.
    Gregory Scott Courtney, Liberty, TX, pro se.
    
      Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gregory Scott Courtney, then Texas prisoner #820578, now federal prisoner #91805-080, has filed a motion in this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which the district court construed as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles violated his constitutional rights by denying him release on parole or mandatory supervision and that he has been forced to work while in prison without just compensation in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

We construe Courtney’s notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of appealability (COA) pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 22(b)(2). See § 2253(c)(1). To obtain a COA, Courtney must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

During the pendency of this appeal, Courtney was released from Texas state prison to mandatory supervision, and Courtney is now serving a federal sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution in Yazoo City, Mississippi. Courtney’s claims have been rendered moot by his release into federal custody. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir.1987). Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. COA and IFP are DENIED AS MOOT. Any other requested relief also is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.