Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-00050/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-00050-0/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

At the time the instant petition was filed, Evans was incarcerated at the Maxwell Federal Prison

Camp located in Montgomery, Alabama. He was released from custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on

July 28, 2004. See Respondents’ Exhibit A at 1. 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH W. EVANS, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:04-CV-50-T

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 Joseph W. Evans, a former federal inmate, on January 22, 2004. In this

petition, Evans sought to compel the Bureau of Prisons to release him to a Community

Confinement Center (“CCC”) for service of the last six months of his prison term.1

Specifically, he requested that service of the last six months of his sentence be carried out

at a community based facility pursuant to the Bureau of Prisons’ policy concerning CCC

placement as such policy existed prior to December 16, 2002. 

On February 3, 2005, the court entered an order directing the parties to show cause

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

was no longer incarcerated. The respondents filed a response to this order on March 3, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00050-MHT-SRW Document 28 Filed 03/07/05 Page 1 of 4
2

in which they argue that since Evans “has been released from custody . . . the petition in this

matter is due to be and should be dismissed as moot.” Respondents’ March 3, 2005

Response at 2. The petitioner, however, has filed nothing in response to the February 3, 2005

order. 

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 2:04-cv-00050-MHT-SRW Document 28 Filed 03/07/05 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).

The petitioner’s ultimate objective in filing this action was to be released to a

community based facility for service of the last six months of his prison term. Since he has

been released from this term of incarceration, 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 (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 the petitioner to any additional relief. It is further

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

within a period of 13 days from the date of mailing or transmittal to them. Any objections

filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to

Case 2:04-cv-00050-MHT-SRW Document 28 Filed 03/07/05 Page 3 of 4
4

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 7th day of March, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00050-MHT-SRW Document 28 Filed 03/07/05 Page 4 of 4