Reese v. SCI-Huntingdon

Full title: FRANCIS ORDEAN REESE, Petitioner v. SCI-HUNTINGDON, et al., Respondents

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Oct 3, 2018

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-0125 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-0125

10-03-2018

FRANCIS ORDEAN REESE, Petitioner v. SCI-HUNTINGDON, et al., Respondents

ARBUCKLE, M.J.

(MARIANI, D.J.) ()

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the court is a Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Francis Ordean Reese ("Petitioner") on January 20, 2015 (Doc. 1). Petitioner challenged his 1997 and 1998 convictions of Indecent Assault, Rape, and Sexual Assault, and sought immediate release. Id.

On October 2, 2018, Respondents SCI-Huntingdon and the Pennsylvania Attorney General ("Respondents") filed a Motion for a Suggestion of Mootness indicating Petitioner has served his sentence and "is no longer under supervision of any kind for the underlying convictions." (Doc. 26, p. 2). Accordingly, Respondent argues the Petition (Doc. 1) should be dismissed because the issue presented is moot. (Doc. 26, p. 2). I agree. II. DISCUSSION

The judicial branch of the United States, like the executive or legislative departments, is one of limited powers. Citizens' Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 663 (1874). Article III of the Constitution conditions the exercise of federal judicial power "upon the existence of a case or controversy." North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the mere fact that a dispute existed when the plaintiff filed the action does not suffice to support federal court jurisdiction. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). In fact, "only actual, ongoing cases or controversies" satisfy the threshold requirements of Article III. Id. at 477. Litigants must therefore maintain a "personal stake" in the outcomes of their lawsuits. Id. at 478; Rosetti v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 1216, 1223 (3d Cir. 1993).

Just as Article III confers jurisdiction, so too does it take jurisdiction away. For instance, federal courts have no constitutional authority to decide moot cases. Rosetti, 12 F.3d at 1223 (citing Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301, 306 n.3 (1964); see also U.S. v. Grape, 549 F.3d 591, 597 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating that the court had to first "resolve the issue of mootness" before it could exercise jurisdiction). The Third Circuit explained:

The mootness doctrine is centrally concerned with the court's ability to grant effective relief: 'If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome

of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.'

Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590, 596 (3d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

Here, the Petition no longer presents a case or controversy. See Mwigamani v. Holder, 2015 WL 9008577, at *1 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (holding that a habeas corpus petition did not present a case or controversy because the petitioner was no longer in ICE custody); see also Aziz v. Attorney General U.S., 537 F. App'x 56 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (concluding that petitioner's removal from the United States rendered his habeas corpus petition moot). Put plainly, Petition sought to be released from custody (Doc. 1) and Petitioner was granted that relief in the form of his release. (Doc. 26). Therefore, the Court can grant no further relief and the Petition should be dismissed as moot. III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that:

(1) The Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as MOOT; and

(2) The Clerk of Court CLOSE this case.

Date: October 3, 2018

BY THE COURT

s/William I . Arbuckle

William I. Arbuckle

U.S. Magistrate Judge NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
[LOCAL RULE 72.3]

Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

Date: October 3, 2018

BY THE COURT

s/William I . Arbuckle

William I. Arbuckle

U.S. Magistrate Judge