United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ANTHONY Q. BAUMGARTEN, Petitioner,
WARDEN DAVID ORTIZ, Respondent.
B. KUGLER United States District Judge
Anthony Q. Baumgarten, is a federal prisoner proceeding
pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Baumgarten
challenges the amount of time that he received to be placed
in a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”) at the
end of his term of imprisonment. For the following reasons,
the habeas petition will be denied as moot.
is set to be released from federal detention on September 28,
2017, after serving a lengthy drug conspiracy sentence.
Petitioner states in his habeas petition that in April, 2016,
it was agreed that he would serve his last eleven-to-twelve
months of this sentence at a RRC. However, in September,
2016, Mr. Baumgarten explains that his new date to the RRC
was now only going to be five-and-one-half months prior to
the end of his sentence. He requests that this Court order
the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to grant
him an eleven-to-twelve month period at an RRC at the end of
his prison sentence.
filed a response brief in opposition to the habeas petition.
Respondent states that Mr. Baumgarten's placement in an
RRC was lessened by the Residential Reentry Manager in
Baltimore due to limited space. Mr. Baumgarten then filed a
reply in support of his habeas petition. Subsequently, on
April 5, 2017, this Court received a letter from respondent
indicating that Mr. Baumgarten had now been placed in an RRC.
Respondent requests that his habeas petition now be denied as
moot in light of this placement. On April 7, 2017, this Court
issued an order to show cause on Mr. Baumgarten to show why
his habeas petition should not be dismissed as moot in light
of his placement in an RRC. Mr. Baumgarten has not responded
to this order to show cause as of today's
Court need not engage in a discussion of Mr. Baumgarten's
habeas petition on the merits as it is now moot. Indeed, his
placement in an RRC renders his habeas petition seeking a
longer period of time to be placed in a RRC moot because this
Court could not provide redress for any injury that he may
have suffered. See Buczek v. Maiorana, 526 F.
App'x 152, 153-54 (3d Cir. May 15, 2013) (“We agree
with the District Court that Buczek's transfer to an RRC
rendered his habeas petition moot. Even if the District Court
were to render a decision in Buczek's favor regarding RRC
placement, it could provide no redress for any injury that
Buczek may have suffered from the Bureau of Prisons'
action.”) (internal citation omitted); Ganim v.
Ebbert, No. 09-0272, 2010 WL 5556173, at *2 (W.D. Pa.
Dec. 8, 2010) (“Petitioner's sole habeas claim
challenges the length of time his Unit Team recommended for
his RRC placement. Petitioner's subsequent transfer from
FCI-McKean to an RRC on January 21, 2010, effectively
rendered moot the relief sought by Petitioner in this
case.”), report and recommendation adopted by,
2011 WL 53475 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2011).
worth noting that by issuing an order to show cause, this
Court gave Mr. Baumgarten the opportunity to claim that his
habeas petition should not be declared moot due to collateral
consequences. See Chong v. Dist. Dir. Immigration and
Naturalization Serv., 264 F.3d 378, 383 (3d Cir. 2001)
(noting exception to mootness doctrine where secondary or
“collateral” injuries survive after resolution of
the primary injury). However, Mr. Baumgarten has not come
forward with any “collateral consequences”
argument as he did not respond to this Court's order to
show cause in the time allotted. Thus, there has been no
showing of collateral consequences to overcome the mootness
of his habeas petition. Cf. Demis v. Sniezek, 558
F.3d 508, 516 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Because Demis can point
to no ‘collateral consequences' that are the result
of his delayed placement in a[n] [RRC], and certainly none
that persist after the expiration of his sentence which this
Court could remedy in the habeas context, Demis' reliance
on the ‘collateral consequences' exception to
mootness is unavailing.”) (citing Gentry v.
Deuth, 456 F.3d 687, 694 (6th Cir. 2006)). Therefore,
the habeas petition will be denied as moot.
foregoing reasons, the habeas petition will be denied as
moot. An appropriate order will be entered.
 The order to show cause was returned
as undeliverable on Mr. Baumgarten. Indeed, Mr. Baumgarten
has failed to apprise this Court of his new address of record
in violation of Local Civil Rule 10.1(a)
(“[U]nrepresented parties must advise the Court of any
change in their . . . address within seven days of being