Marsera v. Oddo

• Decision Date: 13 August 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 19 - 245
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
• Parties: ANTHONY MARSERA, Petitioner, v. L.J. ODDO, Warden, Respondent.

ANTHONY MARSERA, Petitioner, v. L.J. ODDO, Warden, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 19 - 245

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 13, 2020

District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan

Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed as moot.

II. REPORT

Petitioner Anthony Marsera ("Petitioner") initiated this action on March 7, 2019 by submitting for filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. In his Petition, Petitioner argues that he should have received credit against his federal sentence for the period of time during which he was detained in a Columbian jail before his extradition to the United States; specifically, November 23, 2015 to November 10, 2016. ECF No. 1-1. On April 29, 2019, Respondent filed a Notice of Suggestion of Mootness, wherein it was asserted that the Petition should be dismissed as moot because the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") conducted an audit of Petitioner's sentence computation on April 1, 2019, and determined that Petitioner should receive credit toward his federal sentence for the time he spent in Columbian custody. ECF No. 7. Following the audit of his sentence, Petitioner was released from BOP custody on April 1, 2019. Id.

Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of federal courts to "cases or controversies" between parties. U.S. CONST. Art. III, § 2; see Chong v. District Dir., I.N.S., 264 F.3d 378, 383 (3d Cir. 2001) ("[T]he exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence of a case or controversy."). "This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate . . . the parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990) (internal citations and quotations omitted). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974) (the adjudicatory power of a federal court depends upon "the continuing existence of a live and actual controversy") (emphasis in original). "Past exposure to illegal conduct is insufficient to sustain a present case or controversy . . . if unaccompanied by continuing, present adverse effects." Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974)).

"[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). A court's ability to grant effective relief lies at the heart of the mootness doctrine. County of Morris v. Nationalist Mvmt., 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001); see also In re Material Witness Warrant Nichols, 77 F.3d 1277, 1279 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting that mootness means that it would be impossible to grant the petitioner any meaningful relief on his claims). Thus, "[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot." Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).

Here, Petitioner asks this Court to compel the BOP to award him prior custody credit against his federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) for the time he spent in custody in Columbia before his extradition to the United States. As reflected in the Respondent's Notice of Suggestion of Mootness, the BOP reviewed Petitioner's eligibility for credit and awarded him prior custody credit for the time he spent in custody in Columbia. As Petitioner has been provided with all the relief that this Court could have ordered if it had granted his Petition, the Petition has been rendered moot. See, e.g., Wilson v. Reilly, 163 F. App'x 122, 125 (3d Cir. 2006) (When the Parole Board provided the petitioner with the relief sought in his § 2241 petition, this rendered his habeas claim moot). The Petition should therefore be dismissed as moot.¹

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed as moot.

In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, Petitioner shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of the service of this report and recommendation to file written objections thereto. Petitioner's failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of his appellate rights.

/s/_________

Lisa Pupo Lenihan

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 13, 2020.

Cc: Anthony Marsera

78317-054

Moshannon Valley Correctional Center

555 Geo Drive

Philipsburg, PA 16886

Counsel of record

(Via CM/ECF electronic mail)

1. The Petition is further subject to dismissal as moot...