Henderson v. Williams, No. 4:2019cv00947 - Document 12 (N.D. Ohio 2019)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order Because Petitioner has received the relief requested in his petition, the case is moot. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim. Accordingly, the Government's motion to dismiss is granted for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 9 . The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 8/5/2019. (S,Ke)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Henderson v. Williams Doc. 12 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DMITRI HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MARK WILLIAMS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:19CV947 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 9] Pro se petitioner Dmitri Henderson, confined at FCI Elkton, filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He requests “relief in the form of removing all holds, including medical[,] none of which are valid and are unlawfully detaining petitioner in custody.” ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 1. In response, the Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 9 at PageID #: 22. Following the filing of the habeas petition, Petitioner’s medical hold was lifted. Id. Petitioner is set for placement in a halfway house on August 6, 2019. ECF No. 9-1 at PageID #: 25. Because Petitioner has received the relief requested in his petition, the case is moot. See Berger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 1993) (“Mootness results when events occur during the pendency of the litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief.”) (quotation omitted). The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim. See id. Dockets.Justia.com (4:19CV947) Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss is granted for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 9. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. August 5, 2019 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 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.
