Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Respondent-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Federal prisoner Joseph Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We dismiss.
Brown’s section 2241 petition alleged that prison staff at USP Atwater improperly designated him to a “Control Unit Facility” within the prison. The district court dismissed Brown’s petition on the basis that his claim was not cognizable in habeas. On appeal, Brown asks this court to remand the petition to the district court so he can develop a claim that, he contends, meets the jurisdictional requirements to seek habeas relief.
We need not determine whether the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Brown’s habeas petition because the Bureau of Prisons’ inmate locator service shows that Brown is currently being housed at USP Canaan, in Waymart, Pennsylvania. Brown’s claim, which arose from his custody designation at USP Atwater, is therefore moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (a habeas petition becomes moot when the injury alleged cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision); Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissing appeal because challenge to placement in administrative segregation became moot upon appellant’s release on parole). We, accordingly, deny Brown’s request to remand to add a new claim and dismiss this appeal. See Munoz, 104 F.3d at 1098.
All other pending motions are denied.
DISMISSED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-16153
Decided: March 19, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)