IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD K. JOHNSON-BEY, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-1549

:

WARDEN ODDO, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

October 7, 2015

Background

This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

was initiated by Donald K. Johnson-Bey, an inmate confined at the Allenwood

United States Penitentiary, White Deer, Pennsylvania (USP-Allenwood). Named

as Respondent is USP-Allenwood Warden Oddo. The required filing fee was

paid.

Petitioner states that he is presently serving a sentence imposed by the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia on February 3, 2012.1

 See Doc. 1, ¶ 4.

1 Johnson-Bey notes that he was arrested in the District of Columbia on July

20, 2011.

1

Case 4:15-cv-01549-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 5
 Johnson-Bey claims entitlement to federal habeas corpus relief on the basis that

the United States Parole Commission (Parole Commission) issued him an illegal

parole violator warrant on July 27, 2011 which has been lodged with the Federal

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) as a detainer. See id. at ¶ 13. The Petition, which is

dated July 14, 2015, alleges that the detainer is an impermissible act of Congress

because it was not properly supported by an oath or affirmation. Johnson-Bey 

adds that the imposition of the detainer prevents him from engaging in

rehabilitative programs while in prison. As relief, Petitioner requests that the

detainer be withdrawn. See id. at ¶ 15.

Correspondence sent to the Petitioner from this Court was returned as

undeliverable with a notation that Petitioner was no longer confined at USPAllenwood. See Doc. 4. Upon receipt of the returned mail, this Court conducted

a computerized data base search of the electronic inmate locator database

maintained by the BOP and discovered that Petitioner had passed away on August

14, 2015.2

Discussion

Habeas corpus review under § 2241 “allows a federal prisoner to challenge

2 The petition in this matter was docketed on August 7, 2015.

2

Case 4:15-cv-01549-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 5
the ‘execution’ of his sentence.” Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d

235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). Review is available “where the deprivation of rights is

such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver,

288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). More recently, in Suggs v. Bureau of Prisons,

2008 WL 2966740 *4 (D. N.J. July 31, 2008), the district court reiterated that in

cases where “a judgment in Petitioner’s favor would not affect the fact or duration

of Petitioner’s incarceration, habeas relief is unavailable.” Based upon the nature

of Johnson-Bey’s pending claim that an improper detainer was lodged against

him, this matter is properly brought under § 2241. See Kirkpatrick v. Ohio, Civil

Action No. 1:07-CV-2202, 2007 WL 4443219 *1 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 18,

2007)(Conner, J.).

In light of Petitioner’s demise, the relevant inquiry is whether his pending

petition for writ of habeas corpus is now moot. The case or controversy

requirement of Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution subsists through

all stages of federal judicial proceedings. Parties must continue to have a

“‘personal stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,

494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). In

other words, throughout the course of the action, the aggrieved party must suffer

or be threatened with actual injury caused by the defendant. Lewis, 494 U.S. at

3

Case 4:15-cv-01549-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 5
477.

The adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon "the continuing

existence of a live and acute controversy." Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452,

459 (1974) (emphasis in original). "The rule in federal cases is that an actual

controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the

complaint is filed." Id. at n.10 (citations omitted). "Past exposure to illegal

conduct is insufficient to sustain a present case or controversy ... if unaccompanied

by continuing, present adverse effects." Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F. Supp. 1451,

1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974));

see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, Civil No.3:CV-02-465, slip op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May

17, 2002) (Vanaskie, C.J.).

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot when the petitioner has died. 

See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 168 n.2 (1986); McMann v. Richardson,

397 U.S. 759, 760 n.1 (1970); McLendon v. Trigg, 79 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir.

1996); Knapp v. Baker, 509 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975); Urioste v. Mendoza-Powers,

No. 1:07-cv-01164, 2008 WL 683304 (E.D. Cal. March 12, 2008). 

Under the principles set forth in Spencer, Steffel, and Lewis, and consistent

with Lockhart, Kravitz, and the other habeas cases cited in the immediately

preceding paragraph, Johnson-Bey’s death has caused his instant habeas corpus

4

Case 4:15-cv-01549-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 5
petition to become moot since it no longer presents an existing case or

controversy. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed. 

An appropriate Order will enter.

BY THE COURT: 

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

5

Case 4:15-cv-01549-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 10/07/15 Page 5 of 5