Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00710/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00710-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

1

When he filed the instant application for habeas relief, Petitioner was incarcerated at the Maxwell

Federal Prison Camp located in Montgomery, Alabama. The online records maintained by the Federal

Bureau of Prisons currently reflect that Petitioner is no longer incarcerated. See Federal Bureau of Prisons,

Inmate Locator at http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 __________________________________

JORGE L. GARIB-BAZAIN, #17836-069 *

Petitioner, *

v. * 2:05-CV-710-MHT

 (WO) 

SCOTT A. MIDDLEBROOKS, WARDEN *

Respondent. *

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, Jorge Garib-Bazain, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Alleging that new Community Confinement Center regulations

limiting time spent in a halfway house should not be retroactively applied to him, GaribBazain filed this action requesting that the Bureau of Prisons use its discretionary authority

to order his release to a Community Confinement Center from July 25, 2005 through

December 30, 2005 and place him on direct home confinement from December 31, 2005

through June of 2006. 

On August 2, 2006 the court entered an order directing Garib-Bazain to show cause

why the application for habeas relief should not be dismissed as moot since the information

before the court indicated that he was no longer incarcerated.1

 Garib-Bazain has filed

Case 2:05-cv-00710-MHT-SRW Document 34 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 4
2

nothing in response to the August 2, 2006 order. Furthermore, the court does not have an

alternate address on file for Garib-Bazain nor has he provided his current address to the

court. Because it is clear that Garib-Bazain is no longer incarcerated the instant application

for habeas relief is due to be dismissed as moot.

DISCUSSION

Courts do not sit to render advisory opinions. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244,

246 (1971). An actual controversy must exist at all times when the case is pending. Steffel

v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459 n.10 (1974). In a case such as this where the only relief

requested is injunctive in nature, it is possible for events subsequent to the filing of the

complaint to make the matter moot. National Black Police Assoc. v. District of Columbia,

108 F.3d 346, 350 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (change in statute); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820,

823 (4th Cir. 1991) (transfer of prisoner); Tawwab v. Metz 554 F.2d 22, 23 (2nd Cir. 1977)

(change in policy). 

A claim becomes moot when the controversy between the parties is no longer alive

because one party has no further concern in the outcome. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S.

147 (1975). Article III of the United States Constitution confers jurisdiction on the district

courts to hear and determine “cases” or “controversies.” Federal courts are not permitted to

rule upon questions which are hypothetical in nature or which do not affect the rights of the

parties in the case before the court. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 US. 472, 477

(1990). Furthermore,”[t]his case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of

Case 2:05-cv-00710-MHT-SRW Document 34 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 4
3

federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate . . . [I]t is not enough that a dispute was very

much alive when the suit was filed.” Id. 

In Saladin v. Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 693 (11th Cir. 1987), the court determined:

A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation, such as

where there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will occur again or

where interim relief or events have eradicated the effects of the alleged

violation.

(citations omitted).

Garib-Bazain's ultimate objective in filing this action was to secure his release to a

Community Confinement Center from July 25, 2005 through December 30, 2005 and to be

placed on direct home confinement from December 31, 2005 through June of 2006. Since

Garib-Bazain has been released from custody, there is no longer a case or controversy to

litigate. United States ex rel. Graham v. United States Parole Comm’n, 732 F2d 849, 850

(11th Cir. 1984); see also Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing

Graham). 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the instant

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas relief be DISMISSED as moot since a more favorable

decision on the merits would not entitle Petitioner to any additional relief. 

It is further

 ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on

or before September 24, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings

Case 2:05-cv-00710-MHT-SRW Document 34 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 4
4

in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 11th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00710-MHT-SRW Document 34 Filed 09/11/06 Page 4 of 4