United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
MICHAEL L. ROBERTS, Petitioner,
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.
J. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Michael L. Roberts initiated this action by filing a pro se
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (Doc. 1) on September 19, 2016. Roberts challenges five
prison disciplinary reports. Doc. 1. Roberts asserts that he
was denied a fair and impartial prison disciplinary hearing
in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Id. As relief, Roberts requests that the
Court issue an order compelling the Florida Department of
Corrections (FDOC) to restore 120 days of lost gain time,
restore forty days of lost prospective gain time, and correct
his release date to reflect the correct date of March 9,
2017. See Doc. 1 at 8. Respondents filed a Response
(Doc. 8) on January 23, 2017, and Roberts filed a Reply on
March 23, 2017 (Doc. 9).
the filing of the Petition, however, Roberts has been
released from FDOC's custody. See Inmate Release
Information Search, Florida Department of Corrections,
visited July 17, 2018). On June 14, 2018, the Court directed
the parties to show cause, by July 16, 2018, as to why this
case should not be dismissed as moot due to Roberts release
from custody. See Doc. 10. On June 15, 2018,
Respondents filed a response confirming that Roberts has been
released from FDOC's custody and requesting the Court to
dismiss this case as moot. See Doc. 12. As of the
date of this Order, Roberts has neither complied with the
Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. 10), explained his
noncompliance, nor requested additional time to comply.
Notably, Roberts has not filed any documents since the filing
of his Reply over a year ago (Doc. 9).
a petitioner is released from imprisonment subsequent to his
filing a habeas petition, he must establish that his petition
still presents a case or controversy under Article III,
§ 2, of the United States Constitution . . . . Whether
an action is moot is a jurisdictional matter.”
Shuler v. Warden, FCC Coleman -USP II, No.
5:12-cv-2580Oc-29PRL, 2015 WL 4606220, *1 (M.D. Fla. July 30,
2015) (citing United States Parole Comm'n v.
Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395-96 (1980); Mattern v.
Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 494 F.3d 1282, 1285
(11th Cir.2007); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d
277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987)). Once a petitioner's sentence
expires, “some concrete and continuing injury other
than the now-ended incarceration or parole-some
‘collateral consequence' of the conviction-must
exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Spencer v.
Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1988).
petitioner files a federal habeas petition only challenging a
disciplinary report and the forfeiture of gain time, no
collateral consequence exists after the petitioner is
released from prison. Therefore, the petition is moot upon
his release as there is no longer a case or controversy to
litigate. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Wainwright, 796
F.2d 389, 390 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding district court
properly dismissed as moot state prisoner's § 2254
petition challenging miscalculation of gain time credits
where prisoner was no longer in custody); Lenoir v.
Crews, No. 4:12cv157-RH/CAS, 2013 WL 3811187, *3 (N.D.
Fla. July 20, 2013) (dismissing as moot a § 2254
petition seeking only restoration of allegedly wrongfully
forfeited gain time where petitioner was released from
prison); Schmidt v. McNeil, No. 5:07cv281/RS-MD,
2010 WL 2351461 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010) (dismissing as moot
a § 2254 petition challenging a disciplinary report and
the resulting loss of gain time because the petitioner was
released from prison); Bango v. Mcdonough, No.
2:05-cv-466/RV/EMT, 2006 WL 3483512 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2006)
(same); Doss v. Crosby, 357 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1335-36
(N.D. Fla. 2005) (even if prisoner could show gain time was
wrongfully forfeited, the court could not grant relief).
Roberts has been released from prison based on the expiration
of his sentence. Because the primary purpose of filing this
action was to restore forfeited gain time that would provide
for a release date of March 9, 2017, Roberts no longer has a
case and controversy to litigate now. Accordingly, the
Petition is due to be dismissed as moot.
1. This case is DISMISSED as moot.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this
case as moot and close the file.
3. If Roberts appeals the dismissal of this
case, the Court denies a certificate of
appealability and the Clerk shall terminate from the
pending motions report any motion to proceed on appeal as a
pauper that may be filed in this case. Such termination shall
serve as a denial of the motion.