Court Opinion

ID: 2963749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:41.765176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:31.496948
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 4, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1330 

                                    CHARLES SIMON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Charles Simon on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Emily R. Schulman,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  By way of this habeas corpus petition under
                 __________

            28 U.S.C.     2241, petitioner  Charles  Simon sought  to  be

            awarded 120  days of "meritorious  good time credit"  that he

            alleged had  been unlawfully  withheld from him.   Petitioner

            has since been released from prison.   As there is no  longer

            any  available relief  that  can be  judicially awarded,  his

            petition  is  moot.   See, e.g.,  Fendler  v. U.S.  Bureau of
                                  ___  ____   _______     _______________

            Prisons,  846  F.2d  550,  555  (9th  Cir. 1988);  Bailey  v.
            _______                                            ______

            Southerland, 821  F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).
            ___________

            We  accordingly  vacate  the  district  court's  judgment and

            remand with directions to dismiss the action on the ground of

            mootness.  See, e.g., United  States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S.
                       ___  ____  ______________    ___________

            36,  39-40 (1950); Motta v. District Director of INS, 61 F.3d
                               _____    ________________________

            117, 118-19 (1st Cir. 1995).

                 Vacated  and  remanded with  directions  to  dismiss the
                 ________________________________________________________

            action as moot.
            _______________

                                         -2-