Case Name: Naser Dar EGHRAYYEB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-08
Citations: 426 F. App'x 424
Docket Number: No. 08-3770
Parties: Naser Dar EGHRAYYEB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 424–424

Head Matter:
Naser Dar EGHRAYYEB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-3770.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 8, 2011.
Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Naser Dar Eghrayyeb, filed this appeal from the district court's order denying his pro se habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which the petitioner claimed that his rights were violated when he was classified as an inmate presenting special needs for management and that he is entitled to relief under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), despite the fact that BOP records are exempt from the Act. The district court found that there was no constitutional violation alleged or established and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner Eghrayyeb filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2008, and a brief in this court on April 20, 2009. However, he was released from federal prison on December 18, 2009. Given the nature of his claims and the fact that he is no longer incarcerated, we would be unable to supply a remedy, even if we found that the claims had merit. It thus appears that the appeal is moot and, therefore, that we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam). Eghrayyeb's asserted "collateral consequence," that the BOP's classification of Eghrayyeb as a terrorist would subject him to torture and disparaging treatment, does not permit review because it is based not on proof of a "concrete and continuing injury," Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998), but on mere speculation.
For these reasons, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition.