The opinion of the court was delivered by: Florence-marie Cooper United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On January 31, 2008, Petitioner Alfonzo Mason, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Motion by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' denial of his admittance into its Residential Drug Abuse Program. Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition as moot because Petitioner's release date from prison was in April 2008. Despite two Court orders, Petitioner did not oppose Respondent's motion to dismiss.
Petitioner was scheduled to be released in April 2008. (See Traverse, at 3-4; Declaration of Corinne M. Nastro, at 2, ¶5(c), Exhs. C, D.) Given that Petitioner did not respond to the motion to dismiss or the Court's order to show cause (filed in June 2008), it would seem that Petitioner has been released from custody in this District.
Respondent argues that Petitioner's release moots the action because he can no longer receive the relief he requests -- early release from prison. The Ninth Circuit has held that release from prison does not moot this type of claim, however, because a prisoner, were he successful, could be awarded an adjustment of his supervised release term pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). Gunderson v. Hood, 268 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001); Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2005); Serrato v. Clark, 486 F.3d 560, 565 (9th Cir. 2007). Such relief, however, is available only from the sentencing court. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2); Mujahid, 413 F.3d at 995 n.3; Serrato, 486 F.3d at 565. In Petitioner's case the sentencing court is the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. (See Declaration of Corinne M. Nastro, Exhs. C, D.)
Therefore, although the case is not moot in all districts, given Petitioner's release from prison, this Court is without an ability to award Petitioner any relief. Although this Court might have the ability to transfer this case to the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or § 1631, see e.g. Vega v. United States, 2007 WL 4248279 (W.D. Pa. 2007), the interests of justice do not require a transfer here because of Petitioner's failure to respond either to the motion to dismiss or to the Court's order to show cause.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice.
JEFFREY W. JOHNSON United States Magistrate Judge
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...