United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
QUENTIN R. JOHNSON, Petitioner,
ANTHONY ALEXANDER, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE SHELBY COUNTY DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS,
DENYING PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241, CERTIFYING THAT
AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, AND DENYING LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
L. Parker, United States District Judge.
moves to dismiss Plaintiff's habeas petition arguing that
Petitioner is no longer in custody and the habeas petition is
thus moot. (ECF 18.) Petitioner failed to respond and mail
sent to him by the Court has been returned as undeliverable.
(See ECF No. 19.) For the reasons below, the Court
GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
Quentin R. Johnson filed this pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while he was
incarcerated at the Shelby County Detention Center in
Bartlett, Tennessee (“Jail”). (ECF No. 1.) He
requested to be extradited on his federal detainer so that he
could begin serving his federal sentence. (Id. at
PageID 2.) Petitioner also asked the Court to order that his
federal sentence run concurrent with his state sentence.
(Id. at PageID 7.) The Court later ordered
Respondent to answer the § 2241 Petition. (ECF No. 14.)
the Court became aware that Petitioner was released from
state custody on August 13, 2018, and he was transferred to
the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia
(“USP Atlanta”). Plaintiff did not inform the
Court of his transfer. As such, the Court ordered Petitioner
provide any future change of address and warned him that
failure to advise the court of his address change could
result in his case being dismissed without additional notice.
(ECF No. 16.) The docket was updated to reflect
Petitioner's new address. (Id.) Nevertheless,
this order was later returned as undeliverable to Petitioner
at USP Atlanta. (ECF No. 19.)
now moves to dismiss the § 2241 petition arguing that
the Court is without jurisdiction because Petitioner is no
longer in state custody. (ECF No. 18.)
courts do not possess unlimited authority to hear cases.
Article III of the Constitution limits the authority of
federal courts to decide only those matters presenting an
actual “Case” or “Controversy.”
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (citing
U.S. Const., art. III, § 2). This is “a
cradle-to-grave requirement that must be met in order to file
a claim in federal court and that must be met in order to
keep it there.” Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd.
of Trustees, 639 F.3d 711, 713 (6th Cir. 2011).
“[A] federal court has no authority to give opinions
upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in
issue in the case before it.” Church of Scientology
of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Coal. for
Gov't Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., 365
F.3d 435, 458 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Under the ‘case
or controversy' requirement, we lack authority to issue a
decision that does not affect the rights of the
litigants.”). The mootness question turns on whether a
federal court can afford a litigant any “effectual
relief.” Coal. for Gov't Procurement, 365
F.3d at 458.
here has now been released from state custody and is now
serving his federal sentence. His request to be extradited on
his federal detainer is thus moot. Also, Respondent did not
implement Plaintiff's federal sentence nor is he able to
change Petitioner's federal sentence to have it run
concurrent with his state sentence. Thus, Petitioner's
injury can neither be traced to Respondent nor can it be
redressed by a favorable decision. See Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, (1998). As
such, Petitioner has no standing to bring this claim.
Court thus GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.
prisoners who file petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging their federal custody need not obtain
certificates of appealability under 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1). Durham v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 306
Fed.Appx. 225, 229 (6th Cir. 2009); Melton v.
Hemingway, 40 Fed.Appx. 44, 45 (6th Cir. 2002) (“a
federal prisoner seeking relief under § 2241 is not
required to get a certificate of appealability as a condition
to obtaining review of the denial of his petition”);
see Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501, 504 (6th
Cir. 2004) (28 U.S.C. § 2253 “does not require a
certificate of appealability for appeals from denials of
relief in cases properly brought under § 2241, where
detention is pursuant to federal process”).
habeas petitioner seeking to appeal must pay the $505 filing
fee required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913 and 1917. To
appeal in forma pauperis in a habeas case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, the petitioner must obtain pauper status under
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a). Kincade v.
Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997). Rule 24(a)
provides that a party seeking pauper status on appeal must
first move in the district court, along with a supporting
affidavit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). But Rule 24(a) also
provides that 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 petitioner must move to
proceed in forma pauperis in the appellate court.
See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(5).
Court determines that any appeal would not be taken in good
faith for the same reasons that the § 2241 Petition is
denied. This Court therefore CERTIFIES that any appeal would
not be taken in good faith. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis
is DENIED. If Petitioner wishes to appeal, he is now on
notice that he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee in full
or move to ...