United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER United States District Judge.
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.
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
filed a response in opposition to the habeas petition. In
responding to the habeas petition, respondent argues as
1. The petition should be dismissed because petitioner failed
to fully exhaust administrative remedies.
2. Petitioner's disciplinary hearing fully comported with
3. The disciplinary decision meets the evidentiary standard
required to find that petitioner committed the charged
4. The sanction imposed was within the range of available
5. The Court lacks jurisdiction over any challenge to
petitioner's conviction and sentence.
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.
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.