The opinion of the court was delivered by: Julie A. Robinson United States District Judge
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner proceeds pro se and submitted the filing fee. He seeks pre-release placement in a Residential Re-entry Center (RRC) pursuant to the Second Chance Act of 2007 (SCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), or, in the alternative, home confinement.
Petitioner commenced this action while incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (USPL), serving an 80-month sentence.
Petitioner arrived at USPL in May 2010. His unit team conducted program reviews in June 2010 and December 2010. During the reviews, his circumstances were evaluated to determine whether his placement at USPL was appropriate, but, because his release date was not within 17-19 months, he was not considered for placement in a Residential Re-entry Center (RRC).
In January 2011, petitioner requested consideration for a 12-month RRC placement. Staff conducted a review but recommended only a 6-month placement. Petitioner unsuccessfully pursued administrative remedies from this finding; the responses discussed the application of the five factors identified in the Second Chance Act (SCA) to his circumstances and the bases for the lower recommendation.
Petitioner had a third program review in June 2011, and staff again considered the five SCA factors and also noted that charges were pending against petitioner. Petitioner was advised that the RRC placement process would not proceed until the pending charges were resolved.
Petitioner later provided information that showed the charges against him had been resolved, and he again was evaluated for RRC placement. The outcome was a recommendation for 151-180 days prerelease RRC placement, again based upon the SCA factors. Petitioner then commenced this action.
Petitioner has not notified the court of a change of address. However, on-line records maintained by the BOP show petitioner was released from confinement on August 23, 2012.*fn1
A district court may issue the writ of habeas corpus only when the petitioner is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A federal prisoner may pursue habeas corpus relief under § 2241 to challenge the execution of a sentence. See Davis v. Roberts, 425 F.3d 830, 833 (10th Cir. 2005).
Where a prisoner challenges the period of time he may be allowed placement in an RRC, the appropriate relief is an order directing the BOP to undertake the individualized review required by law. See Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160, 1168 (10th Cir. 2007)(affirming grant of habeas corpus relief and requiring BOP to consider factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) to evaluate possible transfer to RRC).
Mootness Because the petitioner has been released from confinement, the court first considers the question of mootness.
Under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts may review only actual cases or controversies, and "an actual controversy must be extant at all states of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." Arizonans for Official English v. Ariz., 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)(quotations omitted). "If, during the pendency of the case, circumstances change such that [a party's] legally cognizable interest in a case is extinguished, the case is moot, and dismissal may ...