IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAMEION STANLEY, )

 )

Petitioner, ) C.A. No. 08-68 Erie

 )

v. ) Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

 ) 

FRANCISCO QUINTANA, )

 )

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER1

I. Background

On December 14, 2005, the United States District Court for the Western District of New

York sentenced Petitioner to 66 months' imprisonment with a five-year term of supervised

release to follow for Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Possession of a Firearm

in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1). On December 14, 2005, Petitioner commenced his sentence, and on February 10,

2006, the Bureau of Prisons (the "BOP") designated him to serve his term of imprisonment at the

Federal Correctional Institution at McKean ("FCI-McKean"), located in Bradford, Pennsylvania.

Pending before this Court is Petitioner's habeas corpus petition, which he has filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleges that the BOP's regulations regarding placement into a

Residential Re-Entry Center ("RRC") are unlawful because they were promulgated in violation 2

of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). As relief, he requests that the BOP be ordered to

release him to an RRC at the earliest possible date. 

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have voluntarily consented to have a

United States Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including entry of a final judgment.

2

18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) describes the BOP's obligation to prepare inmates for community reentry by, inter alia, designating

them to RRCs (formerly known as halfway houses) at the end of the term of imprisonment.

Case 1:08-cv-00068-SPB Document 12 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 4
In his Response, Defendant argues that the petition should be dismissed because

Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In the alternative, Defendant argues that

the case should be dismissed as prematurely filed because the BOP had not at that point made a

decision regarding Petitioner's RRC placement. 

The Court need not reach Defendant's arguments because Petitioner's term of

imprisonment expired on December 10, 2009, and he was released from BOP custody on that

date. Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, this case will be dismissed as moot. 

II. Discussion

It is a well-established principle that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to decide an

issue unless it presents a live case or controversy as required by Article III of the Constitution. 

See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir.),

cert. denied 130 S.Ct. 458 (2009). "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." Id. at 7 (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank

Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990)). If developments occur during the course of adjudication

that eliminate a petitioner's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being

able to grant effective relief, the case must be dismissed as moot. Burkey, 556 F.3d at 147 (citing

Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7).

Because Petitioner has been released from BOP custody, there is no additional relief that

this Court can provide to him. He no longer has the requisite "personal stake" in the outcome of

the litigation. See Id.; Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for

this Court to consider, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed as moot. 

3

3

When the injury that a complaining party seeks to remedy through litigation is no longer existent, there still

may be a case or controversy before the court if there is: (1) a collateral injury; (2) that is "likely" to be redressed by

the court's decision. See, e.g., Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7-8 (quoting Lewis, 464 U.S. at 477); Burkey, 556 F.3d at 147-51.

Courts often will presume that a wrongful conviction has collateral consequences that likely can be remedied by a

favorable decision from a habeas court. Id. However, in cases such as the instant case, where a petitioner is

challenging the execution of his sentence and not the lawfulness of his underlying conviction, the petitioner has the

2

Case 1:08-cv-00068-SPB Document 12 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 4
III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus [Document # 4] is

dismissed as moot. 

An appropriate Order follows. 

 

/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: June 17, 2010

cc: counsel of record and 

Dameion Stanley

10641-055

FCI MCKEAN 

PO BOX 8000 

BRADFORD, PA 16701 

(last address of record)

burden of demonstrating that he has sustained a collateral injury that can be effectively remedies by the court in order

to avoid having his case dismissed on mootness grounds. Id.; Burkey, 556 F.3d at 148 ("Where...the appellant is

attacking a sentence that has already been served, collateral consequences will not be presumed, but must be proven.").

3

Case 1:08-cv-00068-SPB Document 12 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAMEION STANLEY, )

 )

Petitioner, ) C.A. No. 08-68 Erie

 )

v. ) Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

 ) 

FRANCISCO QUINTANA, )

 )

Respondent. )

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17 day of June, 2010; th

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus [Document # 4]

is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Courts is directed to close this case.

. 

/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00068-SPB Document 12 Filed 06/17/10 Page 4 of 4