United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner
Cornelius Harrell's Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus
Relief (Doc. 14). Harrell originally filed his Petition in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana (Doc. 1). At the time, he was an Indiana state
detainee but was incarcerated in the Jefferson County Jail in
Mt. Vernon, Illinois. The Southern District of Indiana
construed the action as having been brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 8) and transferred it to this Court.
has filed a Response to the Amended Petition and Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 21), asserting that Harrell is no longer
incarcerated at the Jefferson County Jail. Further, after
Harrell was transferred back to the Vanderburgh County Jail
in Indiana, he was released from custody altogether on June
30, 2019. (Doc. 21, p. 2). As such, Respondent asserts that
Harrell's claims have become moot. (Doc. 21, pp. 2-5).
The Court provided Harrell the opportunity to respond to the
Motion to Dismiss in an Order that was mailed to his last
known address. (Doc. 22). His September 16, 2019 response
deadline has come and gone and the Court has received no
correspondence from Harrell.
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
situation. Respondent has documented that Harrell has been
granted the relief he requested, which was release from what
he alleged to be wrongful incarceration. (Doc. 21, p. 2; Doc.
21-1, pp. 1-2). Because this Court can no longer afford
Harrell any effective relief, the case has become moot and
will be dismissed.
foregoing reasons, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
21) is GRANTED. This habeas corpus action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. All
pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment
in accordance with this order.
Harrell wishes to appeal the dismissal of this action, his
notice of appeal must be filed with this Court within 30 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 Harrell plans
to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1)(C). If Harrell 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 30-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.
Harrell desire to appeal this Court's ruling dismissing
his habeas petition, he must first secure a certificate of
appealability, either from this Court or from the court of
appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1); Evans v. Circuit Court of Cook Co., 569
F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2009) (certificate of appealability is
required for state prisoner in pre-trial custody whose
detention arose from a state court order). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2253, a certificate of appealability may issue
“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” This
requirement has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean
that an applicant must show that “reasonable jurists
would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A petitioner need
not show that his appeal will succeed, Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003), but he must show
“something more than the absence of frivolity” or
the existence of mere “good faith” on his part.
Id. at 338 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle,
463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). If the district court denies the
request, a petitioner may request that a circuit judge issue
the certificate. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1)-(3).
reasons detailed above, the Court has determined that
Harrell's habeas corpus claim has become moot, therefore,
his Petition no longer presents any grounds for habeas
relief. Furthermore, the Court finds no basis for a
determination that its decision is debatable or incorrect.
Thus, Harrell has not made “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
THEREFORE ORDERED that a certificate of appealability ...