United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DARRYL L. WILSON, #14898-424, Petitioner,
B. TRUE, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of the pending
petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) in light of
Respondent's August 7, 2019, Status Report (Doc. 21).
Respondent's counsel has confirmed that Petitioner Darryl
L. Wilson was released from federal custody on July 11, 2019,
pursuant to an amended judgment in his criminal case which
reduced his sentence to 200 months under Section 404 of the
First Step Act of 2018. United States v. Wilson, No.
02-CR-00895(25) (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2019) (Doc. 21, p. 1; Doc.
21-1; Doc. 21-2, pp. 1-2). Respondent asks the Court to find
that the instant habeas petition is now moot.
Facts and Procedural History
filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 on February 21, 2018. (Doc. 1). The petition
invoked Mathis v. United States, __U.S.__, 136 S.Ct.
2243 (2016), and Nelson v. Colorado, - U.S. -, 137
S.Ct. 1249 (2017) to challenge Wilson's enhanced
sentence, which totaled 292 months after a previous sentence
reduction in 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 3). As relief, Wilson
requested this Court to vacate his sentences and remand his
case to the Northern District of Illinois for resentencing.
(Doc. 1, p. 9).
Status Report demonstrates that Wilson has received all the
relief he sought in the petition in this case, and further,
that he has been released from imprisonment.
this Court ordered the parties to report on the status of
Wilson's custody (Doc. 17), Wilson's copy of the
Court's order, mailed on July 12, 2019, to his address of
record at the USP-Marion, Illinois, was returned as
undeliverable. (Doc. 18). Wilson has not notified the Clerk
of Court of his new address or submitted any other
communication since his July 2018 rebuttal to the
government's original response (Doc. 15). Additionally,
Respondent notes that he has no current address for Wilson.
(Doc. 21, p. 3). As such, no response from Wilson to the
status report is expected.
inability to review moot cases stems from the requirement of
Article III of the Constitution which limits the exercise of
judicial power to live cases or controversies.”
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787, 790 (7th Cir. 2004).
The Seventh Circuit directs a federal court to “dismiss
a case as moot when it cannot give the petitioner any
effective relief.” Ibid. That is the present
has documented that Wilson has been fully granted the relief
he requested, that is, resentencing in the district of his
conviction. Additionally, he has been released as a result of
his reduced sentence, giving him all the relief he sought in
the instant case and more. Because this Court can no longer
afford Wilson any effective relief, the case has become moot
and will be dismissed.
reasons set forth above, this habeas corpus action is
DISMISSED without prejudice as moot. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment
in accordance with this order.
Petitioner wishes to appeal the dismissal of this action, his
notice of appeal must be filed with this Court within 60 days
of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1(A). A motion
for leave to appeal in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) must set forth the issues Petitioner
plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1)(C). If Petitioner does choose to appeal and is
allowed to proceed IFP, he will be liable for a portion of
the $505.00 appellate filing fee (the amount to be determined
based on his prison trust fund account records for the past
six months) irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724,
725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d
857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133
F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). A proper and timely motion
filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may
toll the 60-day appeal deadline. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A
Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than twenty-eight
(28) days after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day
deadline cannot be extended. Other motions, including a Rule
60 motion for relief from a final judgment, do not toll the
deadline for an appeal.
not necessary for Petitioner to obtain a certificate of
appealability from this disposition of his Section 2241
petition. Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 638 (7th Cir.