UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT ANDREW WITZKE,

Petitioner,

CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-12429

v. HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SHAWN BREWER,

Respondent.

________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT THE MOTION FOR AN

ORDER TO ENLARGE PETITIONER TO BOND

On October 16, 2015, this Court summarily dismissed the petition for

a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his

claims regarding his parole revocation and did not show that it would be

futile to do so. Witzke v. Brewer, No. 2:15-CV-12429, 2015 WL 6108301

(E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2015). The Court declined to issue a certificate of

appealability but granted petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The Sixth Circuit granted petitioner

a certificate of appealability on his claim that this Court erred in dismissing

his habeas petition on exhaustion grounds, appointed counsel for

petitioner, and ordered briefing. Witzke v. Brewer, No. 15-2437 (6th Cir.

1

2:15-cv-12429-DPH-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 573
May 10, 2016). A decision has not been rendered in that case yet. 

On May 26, 2016, petitioner was released on parole by the Michigan

Parole Board.

Petitioner has now filed a motion to be released on bond pending a

decision by the Sixth Circuit. For the reasons that follow, the motion is

DENIED AS MOOT.

Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution requires the existence

of a case or controversy through all stages of federal judicial proceedings.

See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). 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

redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank

Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “[M]ootness results when events occur

during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant

the requested relief.” Carras v. Williams, 807 F. 2d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir.

1986). Because it strikes at the heart of federal court jurisdiction, the

mootness of a habeas petition can be raised sua sponte by the federal

court, even if the issue is not addressed by the parties. See Brock v. U.S.

Dep't of Justice, 256 F. App’x 748, 750 (6th Cir. 2007).

2

2:15-cv-12429-DPH-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 574
Petitioner’s release on parole moots his request to be released on

bond. See Morse v. Trippett, 102 F. Supp. 2d 392, 413 (E.D. Mich. 2000),

vacated on other grds, 37 F. App'x 96 (6th Cir. 2002); See also Morton v.

Zych, No. CIV.A. 09-12855, 2010 WL 743042, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26,

2010); Puertas v. Overton, No. CIV.A. 03-40157, 2008 WL 4239032, at * 2,

n. 2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2008). Petitioner, however, may renew his

motion for bond should his parole be revoked. Morse v. Trippett, 102 F.

Supp. 2d at 413. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion For An Order

Enlarging Petitioner to Bond. [Dkt. # 27]. 

Dated: July 27, 2016 s/Denise Page Hood 

HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record on July 27, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-12429-DPH-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 575