FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 22 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH N CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1086 4 Ar gum ent Calendar

________________________ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 23 18 9- CV-J AL EDDIE MILTON GAREY, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us FEDERAL DET ENTION CENTE R, MIAM I, Ri ch ar d S tif

f W ar de n, W IL BURD. OWEN S, U. S. District C ourt Jud ge (M. D. GA ), MIC HAEL G. THOMPSON, F. B. I. A ge nt, SCO TTC. HU GG IN S, Co ur t appoi nte d c ouns el , U.S. MARSHAL’S SERVICE, et al ., Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rn D istri ct

of F lorida

_________________________ (M ay 2 2, 200 6)Honora ble J ohn F. Nang le, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Missouri, sit ting by

desig nation. 2 Before BIRC H a nd MARCU S, Circuit Judges, and NA NG LE , D istrict Judg e. * PE R C U RI A M: Eddie Milton Gar ey , a

feder al prisoner, appeals the denial of his h abeas corpus petitio n. H is petitio n was f iled on Decem

ber 1, 2003 pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 224 1 while he w as in pretrial detention. G areywa s being detain ed on federal ch arg es bro ug ht in th e U.S. Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a. He w as c harg edw ith m ak ing bom b th re at s in G eo rg iaduring S ep te m be r of 200 3 in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 51 3, 8 44 (e), 9 22 (g )(1 ), 19 51 , and 23 32 (a)( 2) . G ar eyf ile d th e ins ta nt “ E m er ge nc y P et iti on f or Wri t of H ab ea s C orpus” pur sua nt t o 28 U . S. C. §§ 2 241- 2244 , c la iming tha t the r es pond en ts v iol at ed : ( 1) his F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts ( a) during the inv es tig at ion tha t l edto his arr es t, ( b) in s ec ur ing the w ar

ra nt, a nd ( c) in publ ic iz ing his arr es t; (2 ) his F if th a nd Fourteenth Amendm ent rights to procedural and substant ive due process when (a ) the y se cu re d th e w ar

ra nt f or his arr es t, ( b) the y pun ish edhim f or his r ef usa l t o w ai ve his c onst itu tio na l r igh ts, ( c) the y abuse d hi m a nd m istre at edhim

during his inc ar ce ratio n, a nd ( d) the U . S. D istri ct Co ur t f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia iss ue d aruli ng tha t de nie d hi m his li be rt y int er es t; (3 ) his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts3

to (a) e ffec tive assistance of counsel, (b) c onfrontation of his accusers, and (c) a speedy trial; and (4) F irst, F ourth, Ninth, a nd Fourteenth Am endm ent rights to (a) be f re e fr om gov ernm en t i ntrusi on i nto his tho ught s a nd b el ie fs , ( b) pe tit ion f or re dr es s of gr ie va nc es , a nd ( c) be f

re e fr om f or ce fu l men ta l e va lua tio ns a nd m ed ic at ion . G ary ’ s pe tit ion a lle ge d, a m ong oth er thi ngs, tha t hi s c onst itu tio na l r igh t t o be pr es en t a t a

he aring on the gov ernm en t’ s m oti on f or apsy ch ia tr ic e xa mina tio n ha d be en vio la te d. T he gov ernm en t so ught psy ch ia tr ic e va lua tio n of G ar eyin or de r to ass is t t he co ur t i n ade te rmin at io n o f Garey’ s co m pe te nc e to st an d t ria l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on o ve r G ar ey ’ s ob j ec tio ns a nd w ith out

a he aring . G ar eyw as tr an sporte d to the F ed er al D et en tio n C en te r in M ia mi, F lorida fo r th e ev al ua ti on . T he m ag istrate j udge , r el y ing upo n F al co n v. U nit edS ta te s B ur eau of Prisons, 52 F. 3d 13 7 (7 Cir. 1995 ), found that Gareywa s not entit led to habeas th co rp us r el ie f be cause a ll of his c la im s r el at edto the pe ndi ng c ri mina l c harg es , a nd shou ld h av e be en r ai se d in his c ri mina l c as e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt edthe m ag istrate ’ s r ec omm en da tio n a nd d ism iss edG ar ey ’ s pe tit ion . C iti ng G ove rn m en t of the Vir gin Islands v. Bolones, 427 F. 2d. 1135, 1136 (1 Cir. 1970 ), the district st co ur t no te d th at

“ w he re ade fe nda nt i s a w ai tin g tria l, the appr opr ia te ve hic le f or4

vio la tio ns o f the de fe nda nt’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts are pr e- tr ia l e vid en tiarym oti ons, not habe as pe tition s. ” R7 2 a t 4. T he c ourt c onc lud edtha t a n “ ad eq ua te a nd unexhaus ted” remedy wa s available in the criminal case, and therefore Gareywa s not entit led to habeas corpus relief. R72 at 5. In De cem ber 2004, a j ury convicted Garey on a ll co un ts . O n appe al of

his §22 41 c as e, G ar eyarg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edby rely ing up on Falcon, w hich is dis tingu ishable from his case. Gareyargues that habe as c orpus re lie f is a n appr opr ia te r emed y de spi te the f ac t tha t hi s c ri mina l c as e w as pe ndi ng, a nd tha t r el ie f shou ld b e gr an te d on the m erits of his pe tit ion . W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l o f ha be as rel ie f un de r § 2 24 1. Co ok v . W ile y , 208 F . 3d 1 314, 131 7 ( 11 Ci r. 200 0) . H ow ev er , ac as e m ust be th dismissed as m oot if the issu es presented are no lon ger ‘ live’ such that the Court ca nnot giv e m ea nin gf

ul r el ie f. S oli m an v. U . S. e x r el . I N S, 296 F . 3d 1 237, 124 2 (11 Cir. 2002 ). T herefor e, “ [i] f events that occur subsequent to the filing of a th la w sui t or a n appe al de pr ive the c ourt of the abil ityto giv e the pla int if f or ap pe ll an t m ean in gf

ul rel ie f, th en th e cas e is m oo t an d mus t b e d is mis se d.” Id. A s to G ar ey ’ s c la im

w hic h r el at es to his tr an sf er f or psy ch ia tr ic e va lua tio n, that claim is now m oot. G arey ’ s transfer for evaluation ceased upon his transfer ba ck to the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg iaf

or tr ia l a nd s en te nc ing . Mo re ove r, the5

gove rn m en t st at es tha t G ar eyw as c re dit edf or ti m e spe nt i n e va lua tio n to w ar ds h is fi na l se nte nc e. B ec au se G ar ey ’ s tr an sf er e nde d a nd h e w as c re dit edf or ti m e spe nt in e va lua tio n, thi s C ourt c an not pr ovi de G ar eyw ith m ea nin gf ul r el ie f in the co nte xt o f his § 22 41 p et iti on. U nle ss this c as e fa lls w ith in the m oot ne ss ex cep ti on , itm

us t b e d is mis se d a s m oo t. A lth ough the re is an e xc ep tio n to the m oot ne ss d oc tr ine w he n th e ac tio n be ing c ha lle nge d bythe la w sui t i s c ap ab le of r ep et iti on y et

e va din g r ev ie w , thi s Court has held that “ this exception is narrow , a nd appli es only in exceptional si tu at io ns .” So li m an v. U.S. ex rel . INS, 29 6 F .3d 12 37 , 12 42 (11 Cir . 20 02 ). th Se e W ei nst ei n v. Br ad fo rd , 423 U . S. 147 ( 1975 ) (p er c ur ia m ). T o in voke the exception, Gareym

ust sh ow that “ (1) there [is] a re asonable expectation or a dem onstrated probabi lity that the sa me controversy will re cur involvi ng the sa me co m pla ini ng p arty , a nd ( 2) the c ha lle nge d a ct ion is in i ts d ur at ion too sho rt to be fu llyli tig at edpr ior

to its c es sa tio n or

e xpi ratio n. ” I d. a t 12 42- 3. In the curre nt case, there is no “ reasonable expectation” or “ dem onstrated pr obabil ity ” tha t the sa m e co ntr ove rs y w ill r ec ur inv olv ing G ar ey . A lth ough his crimina l c as e is o n di re ct appe al to thi s C ourt, the re is ne ith er ar ea sonable ex pe ct at ion nor

ade m onstrate d pr obabil itytha t the c as e w ill be ove rtur ne d a nd the d i s tri ct co u rtwi l l o rd eran o t h erp s ych o l o g i ca l ev al u at i o n t o d et er mi n e G ar ey’s6

co m pe te nc e to s ta nd tri al ase co nd t im e. A ppe lla nt h as f ai le d to satis fythe f

ir st pr on g o f th e ex cep ti on , and th eref or e fai ls to qu al ify for t he m oo tn es s ex cep ti on . As to the rem ainder of G arey ’ s claim s in his § 2241 petition , this Court af fi rm s th e j udgmen t a nd ruli ng o f the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the se c la im s w er e not pr ope rl y br ough t pu rs ua nt t o 18 U . S. C. § 22 41, but sho uldha ve be en r ai se d in his pendin g criminal case. W he n ac as e, or

a n is sue in a ca se , be co m es m oot on appe al , the Co ur t of App eal s mus t n ot on ly dis mis s t he cas e, bu t al so va cat e th e d is tri ctco ur t's ord er. T his pr ac tic e “ cl ears the pa th f or f utu re r el iti ga tio n of

the iss ue s be tw ee n th e part ie s a nd e lim

ina te s aj udgmen t, r ev ie w of w hic h w as pr ev en te d th ro ugh happe nst an ce . ” S oli m an , 296 F . 3d a t 12 43 ( quot ing A tla nta G as L igh t C o. v. F ed . Ene rg y Reg ul at or y Co mm 'n, 1 40 F.3d 13 92 , 14 02 (11 th Cir .19 98 )). Acco rd in gl y , as to G ar ey ’ s c la im s r eg ar din g hi s tr an sf er f or psy ch ia tr ic e va lua tio n, w e va ca te the district court’ s order for lack of j urisdictio n and dism iss Gare y ’ s appeal as m oot . A s to a ll oth er

c la im s r ai se d in the ins ta nt § 224 1 pe tit ion , w e af fi rm the j udgmen t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt. AF FIR MED IN P AR T, VA CA TED IN P AR T.