Naser Eghrayyeb v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 08-3770 (6th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0463n.06 FILED No. 08-3770 Jul 08, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NASER DAR EGHRAYYEB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Naser Dar Eghrayyeb, filed this appeal from the district court s order denying his pro se habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which the petitioner claimed that his rights were violated when he was classified as an inmate presenting special needs for management and that he is entitled to relief under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), despite the fact that BOP records are exempt from the Act. The district court found that there was no constitutional violation alleged or established and dismissed the petition. Petitioner Eghrayyeb filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2008, and a brief in this court on April 20, 2009. However, he was released from federal prison on December 18, 2009. Given the nature of his claims and the fact that he is no longer incarcerated, we would be unable to supply a remedy, even if we found that the claims had merit. It thus No. 08-3770 Eghrayyeb v. Federal Bureau of Prisons appears that the appeal is moot and, therefore, that we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam). Eghrayyeb s asserted collateral consequence, that the BOP s classification of Eghrayyeb as a terrorist would subject him to torture and disparaging treatment, does not permit review because it is based not on proof of a concrete and continuing injury, Spencer v Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998), but on mere speculation. For these reasons, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.