Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Georgetown Municipal Court

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

October 18, 2019

Kevin Nathaniel Brown, Petitioner,
v.
Georgetown Municipal Court, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SHIVA V. HODGES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Kevin Nathaniel Brown (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se is incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at Federal Correctional Institute Allenwood (“FCI Allenwood”) in White Deer, Pennsylvania. He filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on Respondent's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. [ECF No. 25].

         Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Petitioner of the summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to Respondent's motion by August 23, 2019. [ECF No. 26]. Petitioner filed a response on August 2, 2019 [ECF No. 28], to which Respondent replied on August 23, 2019 [ECF No. 33]. For the following reasons, the undersigned finds the petition moot and recommends the district court grant Respondent's motion to dismiss.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Petitioner filed this action on March 26, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Respondent, Georgetown Municipal Court, alleging South Carolina had violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, § 2, 18 U.S.C. app. 2 (“Act”). [ECF No. 1 at 1-6]. On May 17, 2019, the Middle District of Pennsylvania transferred the petition to this court and on May 20, 2019, the court authorized service of process. [ECF Nos. 12, 14].

         On December 18, 2018, while Petitioner was in federal custody, the Georgetown Police Department requested a detainer on Petitioner for warrants issued by Respondent. [ECF No. 1 at 17-18; ECF No. 8-1 at 15-17]. Petitioner asserts he sent multiple requests to Respondent pursuant to the Act for disposition of his charges within 180 days, but Respondent either denied or ignored his requests. [ECF No. 1 at 10]. He seeks a court order requiring South Carolina to dismiss his charges and remove the detainer. Id. at 8.

         II. Discussion

         Respondent maintains it has no jurisdiction to try Petitioner or otherwise dispose of his state charges and thus is not the proper respondent to this action. [ECF No. 24 at 1-2]. Nevertheless, Respondent's counsel contacted the Fifteenth Circuit Solicitor's Office concerning Petitioner's charges. Id. at 3. The Solicitor informed counsel he did not intend to pursue the charges and would remove the detainer and instructed Respondent to void the warrants. Id. Respondent has provided the court with copies of the voided warrants and a letter from the Georgetown Police Department Captain to the Correctional Systems Officer at FCI Allenwood dated August 22, 2019, requesting he remove the detainer on Petitioner and attaching the voided warrants. [ECF No. 24-1; ECF No. 33-1]. The warrant numbers on the voided warrants match the warrant numbers Petitioner references in the petition. [Compare ECF No. 1 at 2 with ECF No. 24-1 at 2-5].

         Petitioner's response does not address Respondent's assertion that his warrants and detainer have now been discharged, but merely reasserts his request for an order vacating the charges. [ECF No. 28 at 1-2].

         Respondent contends Petitioner has received his requested relief and the court should dismiss the petition as moot. [ECF No. 33 at 2-3].

         “A case becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer ‘live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.'” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). “‘[I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when [the] suit was filed,' but the parties must continue to have a ‘particularized, concrete stake' in the outcome of the case through all stages of litigation.” Id. at 808-09 (quoting Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-79 (1990)). Thus, “[a] claim may be mooted ‘when the claimant receives the relief he or she sought to obtain through the claim,' because the court no longer ‘has [] effective relief to offer.'” Id. at 809 (quoting Friedman's, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002)); see also Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 763 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding claim moot on appeal where plaintiff received relief sought).

         Petitioner has received all of his requested relief and the sole issue presented in the petition has been resolved. Accordingly, the petition is moot and the court lacks jurisdiction over this case. See Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (finding a court is deprived of jurisdiction over a case when the case becomes moot); Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2013) (same).

         III. Conclusion and Recommendation

         For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge grant Respondent's motion to dismiss or for summary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.