United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
DEE D. DRELL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Jose Manuel
Urena (“Urena”) (#44455-054). At the time of
filing, Urena was an inmate in the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Pollock, Louisiana. Urena
challenges the calculation of his sentence by the BOP. (Doc.
Urena has been released from custody on supervision, his
Petition (Doc. 1) should be DISMISSED for lack of
was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine
base, and heroin. United States v. Urena, 99-cr-73,
2012 WL 3839385 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2012). Urena was sentenced
to a 270-month term of imprisonment and ten years of
supervised release. (1:99-cr-0073, S.D. N.Y.; Doc. 168).
argues that he is entitled to a release from custody under
the First Step Act of 2018.
Law and Analysis
to the BOP Inmate Locator Service, Urena was released from
custody on May 15, 2019. Although an action “is not moot
simply because a § 2241 petitioner is no longer in
custody, ” it is rendered moot “when the court
cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party.”
Salgado v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 220 Fed.Appx.
256, 257 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Brown v. Resor, 407
F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 1969) and Bailey v.
Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987)).
Potential mootness is a jurisdictional question because it
implicates the Article III requirement that an actual
controversy exist at all stages of federal court proceedings.
Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278. A moot case “presents
no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no
constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issue it
presents.” Adair v. Dretke, 150 Fed.Appx. 329,
331 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
case, Urena seeks additional good time credit. However, Urena
has been released. Because he was ordered to serve a period
of supervised release following his incarceration,
Urena's release from BOP custody alone does not make this
action moot. Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918
(5th Cir. 2006) (the possibility that a district court may
alter a period of supervised release-“if it determines
that [the defendant] has served excess prison time”-may
keep a § 2241 petition from becoming moot). The
determination of whether a petitioner has served excess
prison time, however, is made by the sentencing court
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(2); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3605
(authorizing a court to exercise jurisdiction over a person
on supervised release if such jurisdiction has been
transferred by the sentencing court).
was sentenced by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and jurisdiction has not been
transferred to this Court. Therefore, this Court is without
jurisdiction to decide whether Urena has served excess prison
time. See Barron v. Carvajal, 5:11-CV-140, 2014 WL
2985321 (E.D. Tex. July 2, 2014); Daniels v. Fox,
1:10-cv-23, 2011 WL 573418 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2011),
report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 573417
(E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2011). “Because federal courts may
only hear cases or controversies under Article III, it is
unconstitutional for the court to issue mere advisory
opinions.” Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch.
Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 368 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1995).
this Court cannot grant the relief requested by Urena due to
his release, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Urena's Petition
(Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, WITH
PREJUDICE as to the jurisdictional issue, but WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as to the merits of Urena's claim.
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this Report and
Recommendation have 14 calendar days from service of this
Report and Recommendation to file specific, written
objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to
another party's objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy thereof. No. other briefs (such as
supplemental objections, reply briefs, etc.) may be filed.
Providing a courtesy copy of the objection ...