United States District Court, D. New Jersey
August 22, 2005.
RICHARD S. PALMER, Petitioner,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT KUGLER, Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Richard S. Palmer, a prisoner currently confined at
the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, has
submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241.*fn1 I. BACKGROUND
In July 2004, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of money
laundering and one count of bankruptcy fraud in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado. On August 20, 2004,
Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 months.
On October 4, 2004, Petitioner began his term of imprisonment by
self reporting to the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort
Dix, New Jersey, where he remains confined.
On October 19, 2004, the administrative staff at F.C.I. Fort
Dix provided to Petitioner a Sentence Monitoring Computation Data
Form which details a projected release date of June 30, 2006, and
a pre-release preparation date of April 29, 2006. The prerelease
preparation date is the first date Petitioner would be considered
for pre-release transfer to a Community Corrections Center
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) (relating to pre-release
On February 1, 2005, Respondents filed their Answer to the
Petition, arguing inter alia that during the pendency of this
litigation the Bureau of Prisons had promulgated new regulations
governing pre-release transfers to Community Corrections Centers,
which will govern Petitioner's pre-release planning, rather than
the challenged December 2002 policy. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20,
570.21, 70 Fed.Reg. 1659, 1663 (Jan. 10, 2005). Petitioner has not filed any Reply in support of his Petition,
nor has he sought leave to file an amended petition challenging
the new regulations.
This Court has previously held that the BOP December 2002
policy is invalid. See Cestaro v. DeRosa, Civil Action No.
04-cv-0792(RBK) (D.N.J. July 5, 2004). It is apparent, however,
that the December 2002 policy will not govern the pre-release
planning for Petitioner, who was already confined on February 14,
2005, the effective date of the new BOP regulations. See
70 Fed.Reg. 1659 (Jan. 10, 2005).
As Petitioner challenges only a policy that is no longer in
effect, and does not challenge the policy that will govern his
pre-release planning, Petitioner's claims are moot and the
Petition must be dismissed.
This Court expresses no opinion on the validity of the new
regulations at 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21.
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition will be dismissed
as moot. An appropriate order follows.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.