United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER DISMISSING § 2254 PETITION, DENYING A
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN
THOMAS ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
January 20, 2015, Petitioner, Sammie Lee Jones, filed a
pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) At the time Jones filed
his petition he was incarcerated at the Shelby County
Correctional Center in Memphis, Tennessee. (See id.)
For the reasons stated below, the petition is DISMISSED as
III of the Constitution limits “‘federal-court
jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.'”
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Fund, 551 U.S. 587,
597 (2007) (quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811,
818 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The case or
controversy requirement, which must be met through every
stage of the litigation, demands that the plaintiff
“have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury
traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank
Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). A case is no longer
“live, ” and is thus moot, where “events
occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the
court unable to grant the requested relief.” Demis
v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 512 (6th Cir. 2009).
habeas corpus petitioner challenges the validity of a
sentence that expires during the course of the litigation,
the court will not presume that the petitioner continues to
suffer a concrete injury redressable by the habeas court.
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14 (1998);
Demis, 58 F.3d at 512. Absent an affirmative showing
that the petitioner is suffering concrete “collateral
consequences” as a result of his completed sentence,
his claim is properly dismissed as moot. Spencer,
523 U.S. at 14; Demis, 558 F.3d at 512-13.
petition here alleges that the State miscalculated the
expiration date of Jones' sentence and it seeks an order
directing the State to recalculate the sentence.
(See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 13.) The petition does not
challenge Jones' conviction nor does it allege any
collateral effects of the sentence itself. (See id.)
According to the TDOC Felony Offender Information website,
Jones is no longer in state custody, having been released at
the expiration of his sentence on November 4, 2015. (See
release appears to be unconditional as his “Supervision
Status” is recorded as “Inactive.” (See
id.) Jones' petition is therefore DENIED as moot.
shall be entered for Respondent.
§ 2254 petitioner may not proceed on appeal unless a
district or circuit judge issues a certificate of
appealability (“COA”). Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335 (2003) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)); Bradley v. Birkett, 156 F.
App'x 771, 772 (6th Cir. 2005) (same); see also
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A COA may issue only if the
petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(c)(2) &
(3). To make such a showing, the petitioner must demonstrate
that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for
that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented
were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336; see
also Henley v. Bell, 308 F. App'x 989, 990 (6th Cir.
2009) (per curiam) (same). Although a COA does not require a
showing that the appeal will succeed, Cockrell, 537
U.S. at 337, a court should not issue a COA as a matter of
course. Bradley, 156 F.App'x at 773.
case, there is no question that the § 2254 petition
should be dismissed for the reasons previously stated.
Because any appeal by Jones does not deserve attention, the
Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
seeking pauper status on appeal must first file a motion in
the district court, along with a supporting affidavit. Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(1). However, if the district court certifies
that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, or otherwise
denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the
prisoner must file his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis in the appellate court. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a) (4)-(5). In this case, for the same reasons the
Court denies a certificate of appealability, the Court
determines that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
It is therefore certified, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 24(a), that any appeal in this matter
would not be taken in good faith, and leave to appeal in
forma pauperis is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED.
 Petitioner's Tennessee Department
of Correction (“TDOC”) prisoner number is 119817.
On February 24, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Order, ECF No. 5.)
 Jones has not provided the Clerk with
a forwarding address. It therefore appears that he has
abandoned this action. The most basic responsibility of a
litigant is to keep the Clerk informed of his whereabouts.
Cf. Williams v. Blanchard, No. CIV. 3:12-0932, 2014
WL 3672105, at *1-2 (M.D. Tenn. July 23, 2014) (dismissing
case where the plaintiff's location was unknown and the