NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

:

RODNEY GREENE, :

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. :

:

J.T. SHARTLE, :

:

Respondents. :

 :

Civil No. 11-4752 (RMB)

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

RODNEY GREENE, #40074-066

F.C.I. Fairton 

P.O. Box 420 

Fairton, NJ 08320 

Petitioner Pro Se

PAUL A. BLAINE, ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

PAUL J. FISHMAN, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

P.O. Box 2089

Camden, NJ 08101

BUMB, District Judge

Rodney Greene, an inmate currently confined at FCI Fairton

in New Jersey, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a final decision of the Bureau of

Prisons (“BOP”) dated July 12, 2011. (Dkt. 1 at 22.) Petitioner

contends that the BOP violated the terms of the sentence imposed

on November 16, 2009, in United States v. Greene, Crim. No. 07-

0120 (JS) (E.D. Pa. filed Mar. 8, 2007), by failing to run

Petitioner’s 99-month sentence retroactively concurrent to

Petitioner’s Pennsylvania sentence of 11.5 to 23 months imposed

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 9 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 88
on April 9, 2007. See Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121 (3d Cir.

2002); 18 U.S.C. § 3584; U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. In response to

Petitioner’s submissions and this Court’s Order to answer,

Respondents recalculated Petitioner’s projected release date by

reducing his 99-month sentence by 302 days served against the

Pennsylvania sentence. Greene filed a Reply in which he argues

that, while the BOP properly credited him with 302 days, the BOP

failed to credit him for an additional 19 days. Because

Respondents have given Petitioner the relief that he would have

received if this Court had granted a writ of habeas corpus, i.e.,

recalculation of the sentence, this Court will dismiss the

Petition as moot. 

I. BACKGROUND

In the Petition, Green challenges the calculation dated July

12, 2011 (Dkt. 1 at 22), of his federal term of imprisonment by

the BOP. He contends that the BOP violated terms of the federal

sentence imposed by Judge Sanchez by failing to give him credit

for 322 days, which he served in the custody of Pennsylvania

after his November 3, 2005, arrest.1

 (Dkt. 1 at 21.) 

In response to the Order to answer, the BOP filed a letter

seeking dismissal of the Petition as moot, accompanied by the

declaration of Kellen Jean Goulet, Correctional Programs

1 The Petition does not specify the dates of incarceration by

Pennsylvania.

2

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 9 Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 89
Specialist for the BOP, and a Sentence Monitoring Computation

Data sheet for Greene dated October 27, 2011. Ms Goulet avers

that, after reviewing the sentencing transcript, 

it was determined that the sentencing court’s intent,

consistent with § 5G1.3, was to adjust the total length

of Petitioner’s [99-month] sentence to take into

account the time he served on the state offenses . . .

. Accordingly, Petitioner’s sentence computation was

adjusted to reflect a sentence length of 7 years, 5

months, and 4 days (from the originally imposed 8

years, 3 months). This 302 day (approximately 10

month) adjustment was based on the periods of time the

Petitioner was verified as being in state custody (and

for which he did not [previously] get prior custody

credit . . ). Specifically, the adjustment was

computed as follows; 11-03-2005 through 11-7/2005 (5

days); 1-24-2006 through 01-29-2006 (6 days); and 06-

23-2006 through 04-09-2007 (291 days) . . . .

(Dkt. 4-1 at 3) (emphasis added).

The Sentence Monitoring Computation Data sheet dated October

27, 2011, shows that the BOP reduced Greene’s sentence from 99

months to 89 months, which represents a reduction of 302 days

served against the Pennsylvania sentence. Like the initial

Sentence Monitoring Computation Data sheet dated November 22,

2010 (which lists the sentence imposed as 99 months) (Dkt. 1 at

19-20), the re-calculation continues to give Greene prior custody

credit for the following dates:

11/3/2005 through 11/7/2005 5 days

1/24/2006 through 1/29/2006 6 days

6/23/2006 through 4/9/2007 291 days

(Dkt. 1 at 20; Dkt. 4-1 at 17.) 

3

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 9 Filed 12/21/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 90
In his Reply, Green maintains that the BOP’s recalculated

sentence still does not give him credit for 19 additional days he

served in the custody of Pennsylvania. (Dkt. 7.) Specifically,

he states:

Petitioner urges a recalculation based upon his

assumption that he was sure he was arrested on

11/3/2005 and released on bail on or about 11/11/2005

(9 days); re-arrested on 1/24/2006 and released on bail

on or about 1/31/2006 (8 days); and re-committed

6/23/2006 to the day Petitioner was picked up by U.S.

Marshals on 4/20/2007 (see Attachment 1) (and two other

days in FBI custody at Attachment 2) . . . Therefore,

Petitioner urges 19 additional days be deducted from th

amended Projected Release Date of 09/17/2013.

(Dkt. 7 at 1.)

Petitioner’s Attachment 1 is an FBI document dated April 23,

2007, which shows that the U.S. Marshal picked him up for service

of his federal sentence on April 20, 2007. (Dkt. 7 at 3.) 

Petitioner’s Attachment 2 is an FBI document dated May 11, 2006,

which states that, as a condition of his bond, Greene appeared at

the Philadelphia office of the FBI to provide handwriting

exemplars on April 24, 2006, and May 8, 2006. (Dkt. 7 at 6.) 

Accordingly, after the BOP’s sentence recalculation, Greene

asserts that he is still entitled to receive credit for the

following 19 days2

:

2

 This Court notes: (1) Greene wants credit for the two days

he appeared at the FBI Office to give handwriting exemplars

(4/24/2006 & 5/8/2006), but he is not entitled to these days

because the Supreme Court held in Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50

(1995), that a federal prisoner is not “entitled to credit

(continued...)

4

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 9 Filed 12/21/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 91
11/8/2005 through 11/11/2005 4 days 

1/30/2006 through 1/31/2006 2 days

4/24/2006 1 day

5/8/2006 1 day 

4/10/2007 through 4/20/2007 11 days

(Dkt. 7.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), habeas jurisdiction “shall not

extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A federal court has subject matter

jurisdiction under § 2241(c)(3) if two requirements are

satisfied: (1) the petitioner is “in custody” and (2) the

custody is “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook,

490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). The federal habeas statute requires

that the petitioner be in custody “under the conviction or

sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Lee v.

2

(...continued)

against his sentence under § 3585(b) for time when he was

‘released’ on bail,” id. at 54 (1995), and (2) Greene wants

credit for 4/10/2007 through 4/20/2007, but both the original

sentence calculation and the recalculation give him prior custody

credit for these 11 days. See Dkt. 1 at 20 & Dkt. 4-1 at 17. 

Thus, Greene’s calculations differ from those of the BOP by six

days (11/8/2005 through 11/11/2005, and 1/30/2006 through

1/31/2006), but Greene has provided nothing to substantiate his

allegation that he was actually in custody during these six days.

5

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 9 Filed 12/21/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 92
Stickman, 357 F.3d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Maleng, 490

U.S. at 490-91). 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 2241 to

consider the instant Petition because Petitioner challenges the

calculation of his sentence by the BOP on federal grounds, he was

in custody in New Jersey at the time he filed the Petition, see

Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 145 (3d Cir. 2009); Woodall v.

Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 242-44 (3d Cir. 2005), and

he filed his petition in the district of confinement and named

the Warden as respondent, see Burkey at 145. The question here

is whether the BOP’s recalculation of his sentence, which reduces

the sentence by 302 days served against the Pennsylvania

sentence, caused this Petition to become moot because it no

longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of

the Constitution. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998);

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974); Burkey, supra. 

B. Mootness

 The exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence

of a case or controversy because Article III of the Constitution

limits the judicial power of federal courts to “cases or

controversies” between parties. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. “This

“case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of

federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. . . . The

parties must continue to have ‘a personal stake in the outcome’

6

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 9 Filed 12/21/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 93
of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477-78 (1990). “This means that, throughout the litigation, the

plaintiff must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual

injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a

favorable judicial decision.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). 

In this case, the Petition challenged Greene’s projected

release date on the ground that the BOP violated terms of the

federal sentence imposed by Judge Sanchez by failing to give him

credit for time he served in the custody of Pennsylvania after

his November 3, 2005, arrest. (Dkt. 1 at 21.) In response to

this litigation, the BOP agreed with Petitioner that Judge

Sanchez intended to deduct the time served against the

Pennsylvania sentence from the 99-month federal sentence; after

contacting Pennsylvania authorities, the BOP verified that Greene

had served 302 days in Pennsylvania custody prior to his federal

sentence, and the BOP recalculated the sentence by deducting this

302 days from the 99-month federal sentence. Although Greene

maintains that he served 321 days (rather than 302 days), this

Court finds that, when the BOP recalculated Greene’s release date

by reducing his sentence pursuant to the intention of Judge

Sanchez, the BOP gave Greene all the relief this Court could have

7

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 9 Filed 12/21/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 94
ordered if it had granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus.3 Thus, the

BOP’s recalculation of the sentence caused the Petition to become

moot because Greene was no longer threatened with “an actual

injury traceable to the [BOP] and likely to be redressed by a

favorable judicial decision.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7; see also

Wilson v. Reilly, 163 Fed. App’x 122 (3d Cir. 2006) (When the

Parole Board provided habeas petitioner with the relief sought in

his § 2241 petition, this rendered his habeas claim moot). This

Court will therefore dismiss the Petition as moot.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court dismisses the

Petition as moot.

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB

United States District Judge

Dated: December 21, 2011

3

 Greene also complains for the first time in his second

Reply (Dkt. 8) that the BOP’s sentence recalculation reduced his

potential good conduct time credit by 39 days. Nothing in this

Opinion prevents Greene from challenging the BOP’s recalculation

of his sentence through the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program. 

8

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 9 Filed 12/21/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 95