IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN MARLOWE, : CIVIL NO. 3:15-CV-1774

:

Petitioner, : (Judge Kosik)

:

v. :

: (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

JENNIFER BOWSER, et al. :

:

Respondents. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. Statement of Facts and of the Case

This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by Kevin Marlowe, a federal

prisoner housed in a half-way house, the Capitol Pavilion. (Doc. 1.) In his petition

Marlowe raised some financial concerns, requesting that “(1) Capitol Pavilion refund

any all [sic] money collected under this petition, and (2) cease and desist from

collecting future money regarding this petition.” (Id., p. 8.) 

On October 2, 2015, we directed the government to respond to this petition.

While we were awaiting that response, on October 19, 2015, Marlowe filed a pleading

which explained that, “After filing my petition with this court, the BOP has conceded

and stated that they will not levy their tax on this expense. They have returned my

1

Case 3:15-cv-01774-EMK-LQ Document 9 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 4
money order. This is a wonderful and correct step in settling this petition.” (Doc. 7,

p.1.) Given this action by the Bureau of Prisons, respondents suggest that the instant

petition is now moot. (Doc.8.)

We concur.

II. Discussion

The United Statesis correct in suggesting that this case is now moot and should

be dismissed. The mootness doctrine recognizes a fundamental truth in litigation: 

“[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s

personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the

requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum

Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996). 

In habeas corpus litigation there is a constitutional dimension to the mootness

doctrine:

Under Article III of the Constitution, a federal court may adjudicate

“only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental

Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “To invoke the jurisdiction of a

federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an

actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a

favorable judicial decision.” Id. (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,

750-751 (1984); Valley Forge ChristianCollege v. Americans United for

Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-473 (1982)).

Article III denies the District Court the power to decide questions that

cannot affect the rights of litigants before it, and confines it to resolving

live controversies “admitting of specific relief through a decree of a

2

Case 3:15-cv-01774-EMK-LQ Document 9 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 4
conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the

law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Aetna Life Insurance

Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241 (1937). The case or controversy

requirement continues through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,

trial and appellate, and requires that parties have a personal stake in the

outcome. Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477-478. “This means that, throughout the

litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an

actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a

favorable judicial decision.’ ” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis,

494 U.S. at 477).

Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d. Cir. 2009)(dismissing habeas petition as

moot). 

Applying this principle, it has been held that administrative action by

government officials addressing the concerns raised by a habeas corpus petition often

renders that petition moot. See e.g., Novas v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

(ICE), 303 F. App'x 115, 118 (3d Cir. 2008); Lindaastuty v. Attorney General, 186 F.

App’x 294 (3d Cir. 2006); Sanchez v. Attorney General, 146 F. App’x 547 (3d Cir.

2005); Burke v. Gonzales, 143 F. App’x 474 (3d Cir. 2005); Gopaul v. McElroy, 115

F. App’x 530 (3d Cir. 2004). These guiding principles apply here and now call for the

dismissal of the instant petition as moot, since Marlowe has received the relief that he

sought while this petition was pending. Therefore, we recommend that this petition

be dismissed as moot.

3

Case 3:15-cv-01774-EMK-LQ Document 9 Filed 10/21/15 Page 3 of 4
 III. Recommendation

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, upon consideration of this Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Suggestion of Mootness filed by the Government in

this case, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition be DISMISSED as moot. 

The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:

Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, 

recommendations orreport addressing a motion or matter described in 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition

of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days

after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the

clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written

objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed

findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the

basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local

Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole orin part, the findings orrecommendations made by the

magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only

in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the

record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own

determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive

further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions.

Submitted this 21st day of October 2015.

S/Martin C. Carlson

Martin C. Carlson

United States Magistrate Judge

4

Case 3:15-cv-01774-EMK-LQ Document 9 Filed 10/21/15 Page 4 of 4