Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00374/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00374-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hoss Mack
Respondent
Jordan Tyler Wood
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JORDAN TYLER WOOD, *

*

 Petitioner, *

 * CIVIL ACTION NO.15-00374-CB-B

vs. *

*

HOSS MACK, *

*

 Respondent. *

Report and Recommendation

This case is before the Court on Petitioner Jordon Tyler 

Wood’s habeas corpus petition (Doc. 1), filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. This matter has been referred to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge for entry of a report and recommendation 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 

72(a)(2)(R). After a careful review of the petition and record, 

the undersigned finds that the record is adequate to dispose of 

this matter; thus, no evidentiary hearing is required. Upon 

consideration, it is recommended that Wood’s petition be 

dismissed as moot, as Wood is no longer in custody.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

Wood filed the instant habeas petition on July 21, 2015 1

while a pre-trial detainee at the Baldwin County Correctional 

 

1 Under the mailbox rule, absent contrary evidence, a prisoner’s 

motion is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison 

officials for mailing. Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 

1299, 1301 (llth Cir. 2001).

Case 1:15-cv-00374-CB-B Document 4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Center. (Doc. 1 at 1). In his petition, Woods names Sheriff Hoss 

Mack as the sole Defendant, and alleges that police officers 

from the City of Fairhope, Alabama came to his grandparents’ 

house on June 20, 2015, said they were investigating the 

“egging” of a neighbor’s house and then sought to provoke Wood 

so that they would have probable cause to arrest him. (Id. at 

10-12). Wood contends that the officers had no grounds to enter 

his grandparents’ house, and that they violated his Fourth 

Amendment rights. Wood indicates that he was arrested and 

charged with disorderly conduct. For relief, Wood requests an 

order directing the Baldwin County District Attorney to dismiss 

the charges against him, and directing Sheriff Hoss Mack to 

release him from jail. (Id. at 10-14). While Wood was 

incarcerated at the Baldwin County jail at the time he filed 

this action, on August 21, 2015, he provided the Court written 

notification of a “free world” address. (Docs. 1, 2). Per the 

notice, Wood is no longer incarcerated at the Baldwin County 

jail. 

Because Wood is no longer in custody, the Court issued, on 

September 4, 2015, an order directing Wood to show cause by 

September 18, 2015 why this action should not be dismissed as 

moot. (Doc. 3). To date, Wood has not responded to the order, 

nor has he sought an extension of time in which to do so. 

Because there is no longer an active case or controversy, the 

Case 1:15-cv-00374-CB-B Document 4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 5
3

undersigned recommends that this petition be DISMISSED as moot. 

II. ANALYSIS

Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution requires 

the existence of a case or controversy throughout all stages of 

federal judicial proceedings. This means that, throughout the 

litigation, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened 

with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to 

be addressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. 

Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 108 

L. Ed. 2d 400 (1990); Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. 

Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Serv., 225 F.3d 1208, 1217 

(llth Cir. 2000)(“A case is moot when it no longer presents a 

live controversy with respect to which the court can give 

meaningful relief.”). If an event occurs subsequent to the 

filing of a lawsuit, which deprives a court of the ability to 

provide meaningful relief, the case becomes moot and is subject 

to dismissal. De La Teja v. U.S., 321 F.3d 1357, 1362 (llth Cir. 

2003).

In order to seek federal habeas relief, a petitioner must 

be “in custody.” See, e.g., Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491, 

109 S. Ct. 1923, 104 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)). While release from custody often moots a habeas 

petition, thereby depriving the court of a case or controversy 

to resolve, a petitioner who faces future collateral 

Case 1:15-cv-00374-CB-B Document 4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 5
4

consequences as a result of a challenged conviction does not 

have a moot petition. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632, 

102 S. Ct. 1322, 71 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1982); Flournoy v. McSwainHolland, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109848 (M.D. Ala. July 15, 2014). 

In the instant case, Wood acknowledges that he has been released 

from custody. Further, although Wood has been provided an 

opportunity to do so, he has not alleged, let alone offered any 

evidence that suggests that he has been convicted or that he 

faces collateral consequences as a result of a conviction. 

Accordingly, this action has been rendered moot as a result of 

Wood’s release from pretrial detention. 

III. CONCLUSION

The undersigned Magistrate Judge thus recommends that 

Wood’s petition seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 be DISMISSED as moot.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects 

to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 72(c). The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

Case 1:15-cv-00374-CB-B Document 4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 4 of 5
5

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of 

a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for 

plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must 

identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 16th day of October, 2015.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00374-CB-B Document 4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 5 of 5