IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JACOB D. SHERRILL, JR., :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-2336

:

WARDEN DAVID EBBERT, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

September 16, 2016

Background

Jacob D. Sherrill, Jr. filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while confined at the Federal Prison Camp,

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (FPC-Lewisburg). Named as Respondent is FPCLewisburg Warden David Ebbert. Service of the petition was previously ordered.

Petitioner indicates that he plead guilty to possession with intent to

distribute heroin in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

New York. See Doc. 2-1. According to the Petition, Sherrill was sentenced on

April 17, 2013 to serve a 48 month term of incarceration with 3 years of

supervised release. See Doc. 1, p. 4. Sherrill does not challenge the legality of his

1

Case 4:15-cv-02336-MWB-JVW Document 14 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 5
guilty plea or sentence.

Rather, Petitioner states that while serving his federal sentence, at the

Federal Prison Camp, Loretto, Pennsylvania the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

determined on March 12, 2015 that Petitioner could not participate in the

Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP)1

 and as a result would not be

eligible for a one year sentence reduction if he successfully completed the

program. The BOP’s denial stated “the information you provided during the

diagnostic interview about your own substance use in the year prior to your arrest

did not meet clinical criteria for a diagnosis of substance abuse disorder.” Doc. 2-

1, p. 1.

Sherrill generally contends that the BOP’s denial of his request for RDAP

admission was arbitrary and capricious because his pre-sentence report showed

that within a year preceding his federal confinement he had a misdemeanor drug

possession charge which resulted in his participation in out patient drug

counseling. Petitioner adds that the RDAP denial violated his Fifth Amendment 

constitutional due process rights. The Petition also maintains that Sherrill’s BOP

1 The RDAP has two components, a five hundred (500) hour classroom program

and a transitional services portion which is completed in a halfway house. Upon

completion of both segments, the inmate applicant is eligible for a one (1) year

sentence reduction. 

2

Case 4:15-cv-02336-MWB-JVW Document 14 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 5
administrative remedies have been exhausted.

Discussion

Respondent has filed a Suggestion of Mootness.” Doc. 13, p. 1. The notice

provides that Petitioner was released from FPC-Lewisburg into Residential

Reentry Management n Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. See id. at p. 2. In light of

Sherrill’s release from incarceration, Respondent asserts that his matter is moot

since the Petitioner can no longer receive this requested relief, acceptance into an

RDAP program.

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

the ‘execution’ of his sentence.” Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d

235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). A habeas corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner

who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement in prison. 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), Telford v. Hepting, 980 F.2d 745, 748

(3d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 920 (1993). Federal habeas relief is available only

“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).

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.

3

Case 4:15-cv-02336-MWB-JVW Document 14 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 5
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 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.).

According to a copy of Petitioner’s BOP inmate locator records, which has

been submitted by the Respondent, Petitioner has been released from incarceration

and is presently residing in Pittsburgh. See Doc. 13-1.

Since Sherrill has been granted release from federal custody he is no longer 

eligible for the RDAP and its related one year sentence reduction. As such, under

4

Case 4:15-cv-02336-MWB-JVW Document 14 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 5
the principles set forth in Steffel, this matter is subject to dismissal as moot since it

no longer presents an existing case or controversy. An appropriate Order will

enter.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

5

Case 4:15-cv-02336-MWB-JVW Document 14 Filed 09/16/16 Page 5 of 5