Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00259/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00259-2/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

---

Presley is no longer within the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. 1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL PRESLEY, )

Reg. No. 17835-074 )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

 v . ) CASE NO. 2:05-CV-259-WHA 

)

ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for

habeas corpus relief filed by Michael Presley [“Presley”], a federal inmate formerly

confined at the Maxwell Federal Prison Camp, on March 18, 2005. In this petition,

Presley sought to compel the Bureau of Prisons to grant him an early release under

18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) upon his successful completion of the Residential Drug

Alcohol Program (RDAP). 

1

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 relief requested is injunctive in nature, it is possible for events

Case 2:05-cv-00259-WHA-WC Document 20 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 4
2

subsequent to the filing of the petition to render 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 (4 Cir. 1991) (transfer of th

prisoner); Tawwab v. Metz 554 F.2d 22, 23 (2 Cir. 1977) (change in policy). nd

A claim for relief 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

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 (11 Cir. 1987), the court th

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).

Case 2:05-cv-00259-WHA-WC Document 20 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 4
3

Presley filed this civil action seeking an early release from his prison term. Since

Presley has been released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, there is no longer a

case or controversy to litigate and this case is subject to dismissal as moot. United States

ex rel. Graham v. United States Parole Commission, 732 F2d 849, 850 (11 Cir. 1984); see

th

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

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 the petitioner to any additional relief. 

It is further

ORDERED that on or before March 27, 2007 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings 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

Case 2:05-cv-00259-WHA-WC Document 20 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 4
4

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 7th day of March, 2007.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00259-WHA-WC Document 20 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 4