Steven Blakeney v. Kathy Huetter, No. 19-1474 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. The controversy concerning Blakeney's early-release date was mooted by his release from prison.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1474 ___________________________ Steven Blakeney lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. Kathy Huetter, Acting Residential Reentry Manager lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: February 20, 2020 Filed: February 28, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Steven Blakeney claimed that the Bureau of Prisons should not have changed his earlyrelease date. The district court 1 dismissed the petition without prejudice. 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. We conclude that this case has become moot because Blakeney has already been released from prison. A ruling that his early-release date was improperly changed would not affect his current term of supervised release, nor have we identified any potential collateral consequences. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 54–59 (2000) (holding that courts may not use excess prison time served to offset the length of a supervised-release term); Leonard v. Nix, 55 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (stating that physical release will moot a habeas petition based on the amount of time spent in custody unless there are “collateral consequences independent of the underlying conviction”). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. ______________________________ -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.
