Martin v. Warden, Hudgins, No. 5:2020cv00239 - Document 9 (N.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MATTER AS MOOT: respondent's 8 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the 1 Petition is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 1/15/2021. (copy to pro se petitioner via cm,rrr) (nmm)

Download PDF
Martin v. Warden, Hudgins Doc. 9 Case 5:20-cv-00239-JPB-JPM Document 9 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 61 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling JULIAN MARTIN, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-239 Judge Bailey WARDEN HUDGINS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MATIER AS MOOT On November 5, 2020, the petitioner filed a pro se Application for Habeas Corpus pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §2241. The petition challenges a disciplinary hearing conducted on July 9,2019, with regard to Incident Report (‘lR”) number3262931 ,which resulted in the loss of good time credits. For relief, the petition seeks expungement of the incident report and restoration of the good time credits. By Orderentered on December 11,2020, the respondent was directed to show cause why the petition should not be granted. On January 7,2021, the respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition as being Moot. In support of his allegation that the petition is moot, the respondent notes that the incident report in question has been remanded for rehearing. Article III of the United States Constitution, limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases or controversies. Therefore, a case becomes moot when there is no viable legal issue left to resolve. See Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486,496(1969). Because IR number 3262931 has been remanded for rehearing, the petitioners challenge to the initial proceeding is moot. See Rojas v. Driver, No. S:06-cv-88, 2007 WL 2789471, at * 3-4, (N.D. W. Va. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:20-cv-00239-JPB-JPM Document 9 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 62 Sept.24, 2007) (Stamp, J.) (a remand for a disciplinary hearing moots claims related to the first hearing as a rehearing cures procedural errors from the first hearing) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Dcc. 8] be GRANTED, and the Petition [Doc. 1] be DISMISSED AS MOOT. The petitioner is advised that if he is not satisfied with the outcome of the rehearing, he may file a new habeas petition after he first challenges the results of the rehearing through the BOP’s administrative remedy process. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the prose petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet. The Clerk is further directed to provide a copy of this Orderto any counsel of record as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. DATED: January 15, 2021. JOHN PRESTON BAILEY 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.