United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
ALBERT LEON RABON, REG. NO. 12504-003, Rabon,
WALTER WOOD,  Respondent.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
M. Borden, Judge
a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by a federal prisoner, Albert Rabon, under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Rabon filed this petition while incarcerated at the
Montgomery Federal Prison Camp in Montgomery, Alabama,
serving a 70-month sentence imposed by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on
October 12, 2012 for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §
922(g) of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues
in his petition that he is due a credit of nine months on his
federal sentence for time he spent in the temporary custody
of the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”)
from his federal sentencing on October 12, 2012 through July
22, 2013, when he was paroled by the Alabama Department of
Corrections. Doc. 1.
filed an answer arguing that the 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be dismissed
because Rabon failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies through the BOP prior to filing his petition. Doc.
12. Additionally, Respondent argues that the petition for
habeas corpus relief is due to be denied because Rabon is
entitled to no relief on his claims. The court granted Rabon
an opportunity to respond to Respondent's answer and he
did so. Doc. 17. A review of the court's docket and
information obtained from the BOP's website,
however, reflects that Rabon was released
from custody during the pendency of this action.
do not sit to render advisory opinions. North Carolina v.
Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). An actual controversy
must exist when the case is pending. Steffel v.
Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 n.10 (1974). In a case such
as this, where the only relief requested is injunctive, it is
possible for events occurring after the filing of the
petition to render the matter moot. Nat'l Black
Police Assoc. v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 346, 350
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (relating to a change in statute);
Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir.
1991) (relating to a transfer of prisoner); Tawwab v.
Metz 554 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1977) (relating to a
change in policy).
becomes moot when the controversy between the parties is no
longer alive because one party has no further concern in the
outcome. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975).
Article III of the United States Constitution confers
jurisdiction on the district courts to hear and determine
“cases” or “controversies.” Federal
courts may not rule upon questions hypothetical in nature or
which do not affect the rights of the parties. Lewis v.
Continental Bank Corp., 494 US. 472, 477 (1990).
Furthermore, “[t]his case-or-controversy requirement
subsists through all stages silent as to how his sentence
would run, the BOP calculated his federal prison term as a
70-month of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate
. . . [I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive
when the suit was filed.” Id.
Saladin v. Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 693 (11th
Cir. 1987) (citations omitted), the court determined that a
case is moot when the issues presented are no longer
“live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome of the litigation, such as where
there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will
occur again or where interim relief or events have eradicated
the effects of the alleged violation.
ultimate objective in filing this action was to secure nine
months of jail credit on his federal sentence for time spent
in temporary custody of the USMS-time credited to his state
sentence. See Doc. 12-1. Rabon has since been
released from custody, however, and there is no longer a case
or controversy to litigate. United States ex rel. Graham
v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 732 F.2d 849, 850 (11th Cir.
1984); see also Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277,
278-79 (5th Cir. 1987).
it is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by
Albert Rabon be DISMISSED as moot because a favorable
decision on the merits would not entitle him to any
ORDERED that on or before June 5, 2019,
Petitioner may file an objection to the Recommendation.
Petitioner must specifically identify the factual findings
and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which
objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections will not be considered. This Recommendation is not
a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
to file a written objection to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
shall bar a de novo determination by the District
Court of legal and factual issues covered in the
Recommendation and waives the right of a party to challenge
on appeal the district court's order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or
adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain
error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; Resolution ...