Bailey v. Southerland
| Decision Date | 13 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1149,86-1149 |
| Parties | Michael J. BAILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Donald J. SOUTHERLAND, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute, La Tuna, Respondent-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Michael J. Bailey, pro se.
Helen M. Eversberg, U.S. Atty., Harold O. Atkinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before GEE, RUBIN and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Michael J. Bailey, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for habeas relief for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Because events transpiring after the district court's order denying relief have rendered Bailey's appeal moot, we dismiss the appeal.
On August 14, 1985, Kenneth Wayne Hammonds, a correctional counselor at the Federal Correctional Institution at Seagoville, Texas, gave Bailey an order which Bailey refused to obey. On August 15, Hammonds filed an incident report, alleging that Bailey had been insolent towards a staff member and had refused to obey the order of the previous day. On August 22, the institution discipline committee held a hearing and found Bailey guilty. The committee placed Bailey in disciplinary segregation and forfeited his good time.
On November 29, 1985, Bailey filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241, alleging that the respondent was holding him in custody past his otherwise mandatory release date by the forfeiture of statutory good time and the withholding of meritorious good time. Bailey asserted that he did not exhaust available administrative remedies because he was denied the proper forms needed to perfect his appeal of the disciplinary findings.
On January 2, 1986, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss, based on Bailey's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. After Bailey filed a reply to the motion, the district court ordered him to show cause why the relief requested by respondent should not be granted. On February 20, the court denied Bailey's application and dismissed his petition for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Bailey filed a timely appeal.
In April 1986 Bailey was released from the federal correctional institute. Following his release, however, he violated his mandatory release conditions and his release was revoked by the United States Parole Commission.
Whether an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates the Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy. In the absence of its being raised by a party, this court is obliged to raise the subject of mootness sua sponte. Donovan v. Air Transport District Lodge No. 146, 754 F.2d 621, 624 (5th Cir.1985). By his section 2241 petition, Bailey seeks expungement of the disciplinary reports and restoration of the lost statutory good time and of the meritorious good time that was withheld from August 1985. The main thrust of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radford v. Marshall
...speculative possibility of injury." Id.at *11 (citing Reichenberger v. Pritchard, 660 F.2d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1981); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 1987)). The allegations in the instant complaint do not suggest a systematic pattern or practice of violating Plaintiff's c......
-
Arce v. La. State
...at 358. "[T]he mere possibility of future consequences is too speculative to give rise to a case or controversy." Bailey v. Southerland , 821 F.2d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, Nelson did not have standing to pursue prospective relief against the Sheriff of Jefferson Parish.57 Where ......
-
United States v. Heredia-Holguin
...a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates the Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy.” Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987). Under Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, “[t]o invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must......
-
Hinkley v. Envoy Air, Inc.
...absence of its being raised by a party, [our] court is obliged to raise the subject of mootness sua sponte ". Bailey v. Southerland , 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (citation omitted). In this instance, whether the district court for the northern district erred in transferri......