2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-7-2010 

# R ich a r d Oli v a r es v . D onn a Z ick

efo o se
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 10-3505

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" R ich a r d Ol iv a r e s v

. D onn a Z ick efoos e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 140. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/140CLD
- 044 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10

- 3505

___________ RICHARD STEVEN OLIVARES ,

Appellant

v. D. ZICKEFOOSE, WARDEN

________________________________ ____ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 09

- cv - 06442 ) District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 18, 2020 Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : December 7, 2010 )

_________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_________ PER CURIAM

. In December 2009, Ric hard Steven Olivares, an inmate serving a feder al sentence at FCI

- Fort Dix in New Jersey , filed this habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 to c halleng e his Unit Team‟s recommendation that he spend the final 150

- 180 days2

of his incarceration at a Residential Re

- entry Center (“RRC”). According to Olivares, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) erred in various ways by failing to recommend him for the maximum twelve

- month RRC placement. As relief, Olivares asked th e District C ourt to order his placement in a n RRC “no later than January 16, 2010

. ” 1 Res pondent filed an answer arguing that relief should be denied because t he BOP did not abuse its discretion
i n reaching its individualized determination regarding Olivares‟s RRC placement. While the habeas petition was pending , Olivares was transferred to a n RRC in Florida on July 21, 2010 . Respondent filed notice of the transfer and argued that the habeas petition should be dismissed as moot. The District Court agreed that there was no longer a live case or controversy, and it dismissed for moot ness . Oli vares appeals

. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary

over a moo tness determination. Burkey v. Marberry , 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009).
W e discern no error in the dismissal for mootness.

“ Article III [of the Constitution] extends the Judicial Power of the United States only to „ cases ‟ and „ controversies. ‟” Unalachtigo Band of Nanticoke Lenni Lenape Nation v. Corzine , 606 F.3d 126, 129 (3d Cir. 2010). “ Article III requires th at a plaintiff‟ s claim be live not just when he first brings the suit but throughout the entire litigation, and once the controversy ceases to exist the court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Lusardi v. Xerox Corp. , 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Ci r. 1992). Olivares

1 Olivares has a projected release date of January 16, 2011.3

“ must demonst rate that he has suffered or is threatened with an actual injury

... that can be redressed by a favorable decision here. ” Okereke v. United States , 307 F.3d 117, 121 (3d Cir. 2002)

. Olivares s ought habeas relief to overturn the BOP‟s pre

- release custody de termination and to compel an earlier RRC place ment than that recommended by his Unit Team

. We agree with the District Court that Olivares‟s transfer to a n RRC rendered
h is habeas petition moot

. See Demis v. Sniezek , 558 F.3d 508, 513 (6 th Cir. 2009). Ev en if the District Court were to render a decision in Olivares‟s favor regarding RRC placement , it could provide no redress for any injury that Olivares may have suffered from the BOP‟s action

. Further, Olivares has not assert ed any “collateral consequenc es”
to overcome the mootness of his petition

. Cf. id. at 516 (“ Because Demis can point to no

„ collateral consequences ‟ that are the result of his delayed placement in [an RRC], and certainly none

... which this Court could remedy in the habeas context, D emi s‟ reliance on the „collateral consequences‟ excep tion to mootness is unavailing.” ). In sum, because this appeal presents “no substantial question ,” 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 ,

w e will summarily affirm the District Court‟s judgment

. 2

2 Appellee‟s pending motion for summary affirmance is denied as unnecessary.