FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCTOB ER 2, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16650 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 81 -C V -2 R I C H A R D W A Y N E B I E S T E R , fo r al l p resen tan dfo rm er i n m at es s im ilar lys itu a te d , R E Y D A V I D V A R G A S , P e titio n e r s - A p p e llan ts , v ersu s W A R D E N J A M E S L A N I E R , W a y n e S ta te P r is o n , M I L T O N N I X , J R . C h a irm a n , S ta te B o a r do f P a r d o n s a n dP ar o le s , J A M E S E . D O N A L D , C o m m is s io n e r , G e o r g iaD e p t. o f C o rr e c tio n s , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 2, 2007)2

B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an dB A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R e yD a v idV a r g a s , aG e o r g iap r is o n e r , an dR ic h ar dW ay n e B ie s te r , a r e c e nt l yr e l e a s e d G e or gi apr i s one r , appe a l pr o s e the di s m i s s a l of the i rpe t i t i on f

or w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . W e is s u e dac e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility ( C O A ) on the i s s ue of

w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng V ar ga s ’ s a nd B i e s t e r ’ s due pr oc e s s a nd e qua l pr ot e c t i on c l a i m s on the ba s i s tha tthe yw e r e not cogn i zabl e und er§ 2 24 1. T he du e proces s and equal prot ec t i on cl ai m s w er e bas ed on the deni al s of par ol e, pre- re l ea se pl ac em enti n transi t i on alce nt er s, and w ork i ncent i ve cr edi t s, du e t o the appel l ant s’ st atus as se x o ff enders . V ar gas a d d itio n a llya r g u e s th a t h e w a s a c tu a llyg r an te dp ar o le in 1 9 9 3 a n dth a t h is p ar o le w as rev o k edw i th o u tdu e p ro cess. A l tho ug h o ur re vi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the i ss ues s peci fi ed i n the C O A , w e r ea d the C O A t o i nc l ude pr oc e dur a l i s s ue s w hi c h m us tbe r e s ol ve d be f or e r e a c hi ng the m e r its o f th e is s u e s o n ap p e a l. M c C o yv . U n ite dS ta te s , 2 6 6 F .3 d1 2 4 5 , 1 2 4 8 n .2 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . B e c aus e the r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tB i e s t e rha s be e n r e l e a s e d f r om c u s to d y , w e f

ir s t a d d r e s s w h e th e rh is c la im s a r e m o o t. “ [A ] ca se i s m oo tw hen i tno l on ger pres ent s al i ve controvers y w i th res pect t o w hi c h the c ourtc a n gi ve m e a ni ngf ul r e l i e f . ” S ol i m an v. U . S . e x r e l . I N S , 2963

F . 3d 12 37 , 12 42 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). A ca se thati s m oo tm ustbe di sm i ss ed because m ootne s s i s j ur i s di c t i ona l . I d. H e r e , w e c an no l onge rgi ve B i e s t e rm e ani ngf ul r e l i e f a s t o hi s c l a i m s r e ga r di ng pa r ol e , tr ans i t i ona l hous i ng, orw ork i nc e nt i ve c r e di t s . A c c or di ngl y , w e di s m i s s B i e s t e r ’ s due pr oc e s s a nd e qua l pr ot e c t i on c la im s a s m o o t. A s t o V arg as, w e affi rm th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f h i s du e p ro cess cl ai m s b ecau se V arg as d i dn o th av e a l i b erty i n t eresti n p aro l e, tran si t i o n al cen t ers, or w ork i ncent i ve cr edi t s. S ee T ho m as v. S el l er s, 69 1 F . 2d 48 7, 48 9 (11 th C i r. 1982) ; S ul t e nf

us s v. S now , 35 F . 3d 1494, 1502 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ; M c K une v. L i l e , 536 U . S . 24, 38- 39, 122 S . C t . 2017, 2027, 153 L . E d. 2d 47 ( 2002) ; W ol f f v. M cD on nel l , 41 8 U . S . 53 9, 55 6-57 , 94 S . C t . 29 63 , 29 74 -75, 41 L . E d. 2d 93 5 (19 74 ). A c c or di ngl y , hi s due pr oc e s s c l a i m s a r e notc ogni z abl e unde r28 U . S . C . § 2241. W e al so affi rm th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f h i s eq u al p ro t ect i o n cl ai m s. C on strui ng hi s bri ef

l i bera l l y, V ar gas argues thathe w as si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed t o o ther i nm a t e s w ho r e c e i ve d pa r ol e , pl a c e m e nti n tr ans i t i ona l c e nt e r s , a nd w ork i nc e nt i ve c r e d its , b u t th a t h e w a s d is c r im in a te da g a in s t b e c au s e o f h is s e x o f

f e n d e rs ta tu s . V ar gas c anno tes t abl i sh equal prot ec t i on vi ol at i on s bas ed on hi s s t atus as a s ex o f f e n d e r , h o w e v e r , b e c au s e h e h a s n o t s h o w n th a t s e x o f f e n d e r s a r e s im ilar ly s i tua t e d t o non- s e x of

f e nde r s . S e e J one s , 279 F . 3d a t946- 47. T he r e f or e , a l though4

hi s e qua l pr ot e c t i on c l a i m s m a ybe nom i na l l yc ogni z abl e unde r§ 2241, he ha s not s ta te dc la im s up o n w h ic h r e lie f m ayb e g r an te d . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o terr i n d i sm i ssi n g V arg as’ s eq u al p ro t ect i o n cl ai m s. D I SM I SSED I N PA R T; A FFI R M ED I N PA R T.