UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES H. MAYES, #06413-089,

Petitioner,

Civil No: 08-CV-14545

Honorable Denise Page Hood

Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives 

v.

CHRIS ZYCH,

Respondent.

___________________________/

OPINION & ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION AS MOOT

I. Introduction

Petitioner James H. Mayes was a federal inmate who was sentenced to serve six

months in prison and thirty-four days in a residential re-entry center (RRC). Currently

pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se application for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner was in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the

Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan when he filed his habeas petition on

October 27, 2008. He requests to be immediately released to an RRC so that he can seek

medical treatment from his own personal physician due to health challenges he is facing.

The Court finds it unnecessary to make a determination regarding Petitioner’s release to

an RRC facility because Petitioner was released from custody on November 21, 2008. As

the following discussion demonstrates, his claims are moot.

2:08-cv-14545-DPH-PJK Doc # 7 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 12
2

II. Discussion

A court may sua sponte raise the question of jurisdiction. Berger v. Cuyahoga

County Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1993). The Court, in this case, sua sponte

raises the issue of mootness. See Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1054, n.3 (6th Cir.

2003) (holding that, because mootness “strik[es] at the very heart of federal subject matter

jurisdiction” it may be raised sua sponte).

Article III of the United States Constitution extends judicial power to cases and

controversies. See U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl.1. “To satisfy the Art[icle] III case or

controversy requirement, a litigant must have suffered some actual injury that can be

redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S.

67, 70 (1983) (citing Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26,

38 (1976)). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal

judicial proceedings . . . . [I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when [the]

suit was filed . . . . 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 (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

If an event occurs that makes it impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief,

the case must be dismissed, Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9,

12 (1992), because “[f]ederal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases . . . .” Iron Arrow

Honor Society, 464 U.S. at 70 (citing DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974)). “[A]

federal court has no authority ‘to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract

propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue

in the case before it.’” Church of Scientology of Cal., 506 U.S. at 12 (quoting Mills v.

2:08-cv-14545-DPH-PJK Doc # 7 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 13
3

Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).

The BOP maintains an Inmate Locator Service which enables the public to track the

location of federal inmates. The Court is permitted to take judicial notice of information on

the Inmate Locator Service. Obi v. Hogsten, No. 05-2531, 2006 WL 42175, n. 2 (M.D. Pa.

Jan. 6, 2006); Meador v. O’Brien, No. 04-224, 2005 WL 2133598, *4 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 31.

2005). The Inmate Locator Service indicates that Petitioner was released on November

21, 2008.

The relief Petitioner seeks in his habeas petition is an order from the Court requiring

the BOP to release him from custody so that he can be transferred to an RRC. Because

Petitioner has been released, the relief sought in his petition has been afforded. The Court

concludes that there remains no actual injury which the Court would redress with a

favorable decision. Accord Elwood v. Sanders, 152 Fed. Appx. 558 (8th Cir. Nov. 2, 2005)

(holding that petitioner’s release pending appeal rendered moot the challenge to BOP’s

policy preventing his transfer to a community corrections center (CCC)); see also Chhibba

v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 154 Fed. Appx. 279 (3d Cir. Oct. 19, 2005).

Although an exception to the mootness doctrine exists for disputes capable of

repetition, yet evading review, “[t]hat exception applies where (1) the challenged action is

in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration; and (2) there is

a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same

action again.” Davis v. Federal Election Com’n, 128 S. Ct. 2759, 2769 (2008) (citations and

quotation marks omitted). Neither exception applies here. The challenged action was not

too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation and there is no reason to believe that

Petitioner will be subject to the same controversy again. 

2:08-cv-14545-DPH-PJK Doc # 7 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 14
4

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus [28] U.S.C.

§2241” [Dkt. #1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: January 29, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Mayes

James, Reg. No. 6413089, Milan Federal Correctional Institution, P. O. Box 1000, Milan,

Michigan 48160 counsel of record on January 29, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/William F. Lewis 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14545-DPH-PJK Doc # 7 Filed 01/29/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 15