1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALI RILEY, )

Petitioner )

)

vs ) C.A. No. 09-138 Erie

)

WARDEN FRANCISCO J. ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

QUINTANA, et al., )

Respondents. )

OPINION AND ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 11, 2009, Petitioner Ali Riley, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal

Correctional Institution at McKean in Bradford, Pennsylvania (“FCI-McKean”), filed with this

Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he challenges

disciplinary action that was taken by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) in connection with

Incident Report No. 1731145. In particular, Petitioner claims that his due process rights were

violated because the Unit Disciplinary Committee did not refer the incident to a Discipline

Hearing Officer for a hearing. (See Petition at p. 5). As relief, Petitioner seeks to have the

incident report expunged. (Id.).

On October 20, 2009, Respondents filed a Notice of Suggestion of Mootness [Document

# 12], indicating that Incident Report Number 1731145 was, in fact, expunged on September 17,

2009, and, thus, Petitioner’s habeas petition should be dismissed as moot. (See Declaration of

Vanessa Herbin-Smith attached as Exhibit 1 to Document # 14, at ¶ 2b, and Document 1b

attached thereto). Petitioner filed a letter response to Respondents’ Notice conceding that his

Petition is now moot, yet asking for the following additional relief:

1. For the BOP to adjust his custody classification score to a score

that would not reflect the Incident Report at issue;

Case 1:09-cv-00138-SPB Document 15 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 4
2

2. For the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the BOP to ask his current Unit

Team to re-score his custody level and eliminate any points

attributable to the Incident Report at issue; and

3. For a copy of Vanessa Herbin-Smith’s Declaration, attached to

the Notice of Suggestion of Mootness, to be placed in his Central

File.

[Document # 13].

In reply to Petitioner’s response, Respondents’ have submitted another Declaration of

Vanessa Herbin-Smith, in which she certifies that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies with regard to any of the additional items of relief requested in his

response. (Document # 14, Document 2 at ¶¶ 6-8). It is well-settled that a federal prisoner must

exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to any issues concerning conditions of

confinement before petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241. See, e.g.,

Moscato v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996). Since Petitioner has

failed to exhaust any of his additional claims for relief, they are not properly before this Court

and will not be considered.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Mootness Doctrine

The mootness doctrine derives from the case or controversy requirement of Article III of

the U.S. Constitution. “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of

federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate ... the 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). In other words, “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.” Id. at 477. 

Since Petitioner has conceded that the relief he requests in his Petition has been granted

by the BOP, no case or controversy exists and the Petition must be dismissed as moot.

Case 1:09-cv-00138-SPB Document 15 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 4
3

B. Certificate of Appealability

Section 102 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (28 U.S.C. § 2253(as

amended)) codified standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for

appellate review of a district court’s disposition of a habeas petition. Amended Section 2253

provides that “[a] certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Where the federal district court has

rejected a constitutional claim on its merits, “the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong...” Szuchon v. Lehman, 273 F.3d 299, 312 (3d Cir. 2001) quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A petitioner meets this standard if he can show that the issue “is

debatable among jurists, or that a court could resolve the issue differently, or that the question

deserves further proceedings.” McCracken v. Gibson, 268 F.3d 970, 984 (10 Cir. 2001). th

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3), the district court must identify which specific issues satisfy the

standard.

Because Petitioner’s claim is moot, a certificate of appealability is not warranted.

An appropriate order follows.

Case 1:09-cv-00138-SPB Document 15 Filed 04/21/10 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALI RILEY, )

Petitioner )

)

vs ) C.A. No. 09-138 Erie

)

WARDEN FRANCISCO J. ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

QUINTANA, et al., )

Respondents. )

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21 day of April, 2010, st

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED AS MOOT, and a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.

 The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed.

/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:09-cv-00138-SPB Document 15 Filed 04/21/10 Page 4 of 4