The Honor able Sea n F. Cox, Unit ed States District Court J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. CCC s are also known as “ halfway houses.” Dismas Chariti es, Inc . v. United States 1 Departme nt of Justice , 401 F.3d 666, 669 n.1 ( 6th Cir. 2005). 1 NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0817n.06 Filed: Nove mber 21, 2007 No. 07-5022 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT J OHN F RANKL I

N B ROCK, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt, ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED v. STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY UNI TED S TAT ES DEP AR TM ENT OF J USTI CE, ET A L. , Re sp on de nts -A

pp e lle e s. ________________________________/
BEF ORE: MERRI TT and CLAY, Circuit J udg es; COX, District J udg e. * COX, Distric t Judge . In this case , Petitioner J ohn Fr anklin Br ock (“ Petitioner” or “ Br ock”) appea ls the district co urt’s orde r summarily dismiss ing his ha

beas c orpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his habea s petition, Br ock challeng es a policy of the B urea

u of Prisons (“B OP”)
re fu sin gto i nd ivi du all y ass e ss t he su ita bil ity of fe de ra l inmate s f

or pla c e me nt i n a

c omm un ity
c or re c tio ns c e nte r ( “ CCC” ) and reques ts t hat th e Court

iss ue a wr it d ir e c tin g the B OP t o 1 imm e diate ly

make an in div idu a lize d d e te rm inatio n a s to his e lig ibi lity for pl acem e nt i n a CCC.2

During t h e p en d ency

of this appea l, however , Br ock wa s place d in a CCC and was then re lease d from custody

on September 21, 2007. The Panel there fore conclude s that thi s appea l must be DI SMI SSED AS MOOT beca use no ac t u al injury

rema ins which the Court could re dress with a favor able de cision. BACK GR OUND Br ock wa s convicted of

money launder ing and fraud i n the Unit ed States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio a nd beg an serv ing his 24-month sente nce on D ece mber 28, 2005. (Apx. at 025 & 043). In an effort to be pr epar ed to see k employ ment upon his relea se fr om prison, Broc k petitioned the B OP to consider him for tra nsfer t o a C C C in which he c ould enroll in continuing e ducation classes in his chose n field. B rock reque sted to be place d in a CCC on or befor e September 23, 2006. (Apx. at 020). The B OP rejec ted B rock’ s reque st, stating that the ear liest date he could be place d in a CCC would be J uly

23, 2007. (A p x . at 0 2 5 & 0 3 2 ). That de termination was ba sed upon the B O P’ s r e g u lati o n s , 2 8 C. F
. R. § § 5 7 0
. 2 0 & 570.21. ( See e.g. , Apx. 032)(“In acc ordanc e with 28 C.F.R. §570.21, the B urea u of P risons will designate inmates to community confine ment only

as par t of pre -re lease custody

and programmi ng , duringthe last ten per cent of the prison sentenc e being
se rv e d, no t to e xce e d s ix mon ths. Re cords in dic a te y ou we re a pp ro ve d f or CCC p la c e me nt t o
commence on J uly

23, 2007. Acc ording ly , y our appe al is denied.” ). After appar ently exhausting his administrative re medies, B rock f iled a pro se habea s corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 i n the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Kentucky on Dec ember

1, 2006. Br ock wa s confined at the USP-BigSandy at the time the petition
wa s f ile d. B ro c k’ s h abea s p e tit ion c ha lle ng e s th e B OP’ s r e fu sa l, u nd e r 2 8 C. F .R. §5 70 .2 1, to3

individu al ly

assess the suitability

of fe dera l inmates for plac ement in a CCC and reque sts that the C o u rt issue a wr it directingthe B OP to make an individualized determination as to B rock’ s elig ibilit y for plac ement in a CCC. (Apx. at 008 ). Broc k also filed a “ M o t i o n fo r Tempor ary Re str a ini ngOr de r a

nd Pr e lim ina

ry Inju nc tio n” wi th t

he dis tr ic t cou rt

a lon g wi th h is p e tit ion , in which he r equeste d that the district court orde r that an immediate deter mination be made with re spect to Broc k’s petition. In a De cembe r 14, 2006 Memora ndum Opinion and Orde r, is s u ed prior to se rvice of the petition on the Department of J ustice, t he district cour t summarily

denied B rock’ s § 2241 petition. (Apx. at 042). On Dec ember

20, 2006, Br ock filed a timely Notice of Appea l, a ppealing the district court’s Dec ember

14, 2006 Opinion and Orde r. The Fede ral Bure au of Prisons m aintains an Inmate L ocator Service , which may

be ac cesse d throug h the B OP’s officia l website (www.bop.g ov)
. Notably , the I nmate L ocator Service indicates th at B r o c k w a s p l a c e d i n a C C C o n o r a b o u t Ju l y 2 3 , 2 0 0 7
. T h e In m a t e L o c a t o r S e r v i c e a lso in d ic ate s th at B r o c k

w a s a c tu a ll y

r e le a s e d f r o m c u s to dy

o nSe p te mb e r

2 1 , 2 0 0 7
. B o th

p arti es
a c kn ow le dg e d th e se fa c ts at or a l argume nt. AN AL YSI S Although ne ither par

ty raised the issue of m o o tn e s s , q u e s ti o n s o f jurisdiction are fundame ntal matters which the Court of Appea ls may revie w sua sponte. Berger v . Cuyahoga County Bar Assoc ., 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1993). Thus, t he Court may addre ss the issue of mootness on its own motion. Id
. Un de r Art ic le I I Iof

the Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit

uti on , f e de ra l c ourt s ma

y a dju dic a te on ly

a c tua l,The pe titioner in Levinealso fil ed a § 2241 pe tition challeng ing the BO P regulations 2 restric ti n gp la c e me n t i nCC Cs w h il e h e w a s in p r is o nb u t, li k e B r o c k , w a s r e le a s e d f r o m p r is on be fo re the a

pp e a l w a s a dju dic ate d. Th e Se c on d Circ uit ru le d th a t th e a

pp e a l w a s n ot m oo t be c a

us e it concluded that if the p et i t i oner pr evailed on a ppeal a nd the matter w as re manded to the district c ourt , th e dis tr ic t c ou ld p os sib ly mod if y the le ng th of his su

pe rv ise d re le a se . Th is Pa

ne l de c lin e s to follow the re asoningin Levinewi th r e sp e c t to the iss ue of moo tne ss. 4 ong oing c ases or

controve rsies. Le wis v . Co nti ne nta l B an k Cor p ., 49 4 U .S. 47 2, 47 7 (19 90 ). “ Th is
case -or- controve rsy

require ment subsists throug h all stag es of f eder al judicial proc eeding s, trial and appellate .” Id . To sustain jurisdiction in t he pre sent ca se, it is not enough that a di spute was a live when B rock’ s habea s corpus pe tition was filed in the district court. B rock must continue to have a n actua l injury

that is capa

ble of be ing r edre ssed by

a fa vorable judicial decision. Id
. Mootness results when e vents occ ur duringthe pende ncy of the litigation which rende r the court una ble to g rant the r equeste d relief
. Berger , 983, F.2d 718. He re , th e on ly

re lie f t hat B ro c k s ou g ht i n his ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion

wa s imme diate consideration by

the B OP of place ment in a CCC. After filing his petition, howev er , Br ock wa s subsequently

place d in a CCC. Moreover, B rock w as ac tually rele ased on Septe mber 21, 2007. Be cause Br ock has alre ady been place d in a CCC , and wa s then rele ased f rom custody , no actua l injury

rema ins which the Court could re dress with a favor able decision in this appea l. See

e .g., El woo d v . S an de rs , 15 2 F e d. Ap px. 55 8 (8 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Chhibba v. Federal Bure au of Prisons , 15 4 F e d. Ap px. 2 79 (3 rd

Cir . 2 00 5) ; bu t c

f. , Levine v . Apke r , 455 F.3d 71 ( 2d Cir. 2006). 2Th e Pane l a lso c on sid e re d w he the r t his c a se fa ll s wi thi n th e e xce pti on to t he moo tne ss 3 do c tr ine fo r c a se s th at are “ c a pa ble of re pe tit ion , y e t e va din g re vie w. ” Th a t e xce pti on a pp lie s o nly wher e: 1) the challeng ed action is in its duration t oo short to be fully litigated pr ior to cessation or expiration; and 2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same c omplaining party will be subject to the same a ction ag ain. Rosales-Garc ia v. Holland , 32 2 F .3 d 38 6, 39 6 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 3) (e mph a sis added) . As both parties acknow ledg ed at oral argument, the doctrine does not apply here beca

use, althoug h oth e r p ris on e rs will undoubtedly fac e this same issue in the future, there is no indication that Brock

will be subject to the same a ction ag ain.
5 CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we conclude that this appeal must be DI SMI SSED AS MOOT. 3