Civil Case No. 2:16-cv-3770-RMG-MGB.

Jason Jaume-Suarez, Petitioner, v. Warden FCI Edgefield, Respondent.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jason Jaume-Suarez, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Warden FCI Edgefield, Respondent, represented by Marshall Prince , US Attorneys Office.


MARY GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

The Petitioner, a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the court on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 11.) Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this Magistrate Judge is authorized to review the instant petition for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.

The Petitioner filed his Petition on November 28, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) On February 22, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 11.) By order of this Court filed February 23, 2017, the Petitioner was advised of the dismissal and summary judgment procedure as well as the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (Dkt. No. 12.) The Petitioner has never responded.

The Respondent asserted in his memorandum that Petitioner was released from federal custody on January 19, 2017, and that Petitioner's "release address was listed as Jard. Monte Llano, EDF 15 Apt 29, Cayey, Puerto Rico 00736." (Dkt. No. 11 at 1 of 14.) On April 5, 2017, this court issued an Order directing the Respondent to serve a copy of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11.) on the Petitioner at his address in Puerto Rico. (Dkt. No. 15.) The Respondent was ordered to file a corresponding Certificate of Service, indicating such service was accomplished. (Id.) The Order required the Petitioner to respond to the Motion on or before May 22, 2017. (Id.) The Order instructed the Clerk of Court to mail Petitioner a copy of the April 5, 2017 Order, another copy of the Roseboro Order (Dkt. No. 12), and a Name and Address Update Form to the Petitioner at his prison address and the Puerto Rico address. (Id.) The Order advised the Petitioner that, if he failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, this action was subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to the same rule. (Id.)

On April 6, 2017, the Respondent filed a certificate of service in compliance with the April 5, 2017 Order. (Dkt. No. 17.) On April 26, 2017, the items sent to the Petitioner at his prison address were returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 18.) The Petitioner has never responded to the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) or to the April 5, 2017 Order (Dkt. No. 15.).

An action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is moot once the Petitioner is released from custody. See Alston v. Adams, 178 F. App'x 295, 296 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding "[a]s [petitioner] is no longer held in federal custody, his action against [respondent] is moot"); Alvarez v. Conley, 145 F. App'x 428, 429 (4th Cir. 2005) (In finding a §2241 action was moot after release, the court stated, "[a] federal court lacks authority to render decisions on moot questions or make rulings that cannot affect the case before it." (quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992))). "Where a petitioner attacks his sentence only and not the validity of his conviction, expiration of the sentence moots the case." Deitemeyer v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 4:14-cv-2855-TMC, 2014 WL 6473520, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). In the case at bar, the Petitioner sought an earlier release date. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Petitioner did not challenge his conviction and has now been released. This court recommends that the petition be dismissed as moot.


Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 11.) be GRANTED on the ground that the Petition is moot.


Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post Office Box 835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases