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.

Kravets v. Hollingsworth

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 30, 2017

ALEKSANDR KRAVETS, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN J. HOLLINGSWORTH, Respondent.

          OPINION

          ROBERT B. KUGLER United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner was formerly a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has also filed a motion to amend his habeas petition. For the following reasons, the habeas petition will be denied as moot and his motion to amend will be denied.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Petitioner initially filed his habeas petition pro se while he was a federal prisoner. This original habeas petition challenges the result of a positive urine sample taken on December 14, 2015, and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings that took place as a result of this positive test. At the time of the urine test, petitioner was housed at a residential re-entry center ("RRC"). Petitioner tested positive for marijuana. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred from the RRC to a federal prison, MDC-Brooklyn. Disciplinary proceedings then commenced against petitioner as a result of the positive test. Petitioner was found guilty of committing the prohibited act of use of narcotics or related paraphernalia in those proceedings. Petitioner lost forty days of good conduct time and twenty days of non-vested good conduct time as sanctions. The Regional Director denied petitioner's appeal. At the time the respondent answered the habeas petition, a response from the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") Central Office had not yet become due.

         Respondent filed a response in opposition to the habeas petition. In responding to the habeas petition, respondent argues as follows:

1. The petition should be dismissed because petitioner failed to fully exhaust administrative remedies.
2. Petitioner's disciplinary hearing fully comported with due process.
3. The disciplinary decision meets the evidentiary standard required to find that petitioner committed the charged offense.
4. The sanction imposed was within the range of available sanctions.
5. The Court lacks jurisdiction over any challenge to petitioner's conviction and sentence.

         Petitioner did not file a reply brief in support of his original habeas petition. However, several months after respondent filed its response in opposition to the habeas petition, counsel entered an appearance on petitioner's behalf. Petitioner then filed a motion to amend the habeas petition. In his motion, petitioner seeks to add a habeas claim that challenges his expulsion from the Residential Drug Abuse Program ("RDAP") that occurred as a result of the disciplinary finding. Respondent filed a response in opposition to the motion to amend.

         Subsequently, it came to the attention of this Court that petitioner was released from federal incarceration on November 9, 2016. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/(last visited on May 23, 2017). Accordingly, on April 24, 2017, this Court issued an order to show cause on petitioner why his habeas petition and motion to amend should not be denied as moot in light of his release from federal incarceration. Petitioner never responded to the order to show cause.

         III. ...


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.