Brandon Pickens v. Todd Ishee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 30, 2024
• Docket: 24-6330
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6330 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6330

BRANDON PICKENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TODD ISHEE, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Adult Correction,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00353-MR)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Michael Pickens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6330 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

While incarcerated by the State of North Carolina, Brandon Pickens filed a 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition requesting dismissal of his prison disciplinary conviction, which

resulted in the loss of 10 days of earned-time credit and 30 hours of extra duty. The district

court granted Respondent summary judgment and dismissed the petition, and Pickens

appealed. During the pendency of this appeal, Pickens was released from custody, having

completed his term of imprisonment. We conclude that Pickens’ appeal has been rendered

moot by his release and, thus, dismiss this appeal.

“The doctrine of mootness constitutes a part of the constitutional limits of federal

court jurisdiction, which extends only to actual cases or controversies.” Fleet Feet, Inc. v.

NIKE, Inc., 986 F.3d 458, 463 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Because

mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither party has raised it.”

United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). “A case becomes moot, and thus

deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction, when the issues presented are no

longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Catawba

Riverkeeper Found. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 843 F.3d 583, 588 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal

quotation marks omitted). “If an event occurs during the pendency of an appeal that makes

it impossible for a court to grant effective relief to a prevailing party, then the appeal must

be dismissed as moot.” Fleet Feet, Inc., 986 F.3d at 463 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that Pickens’ request for dismissal of his disciplinary conviction is

moot because he has been released from prison. Pickens’ related request for restoration of

his earned-time credit is also moot because any time Pickens allegedly overserved cannot

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6330 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

be applied to shorten his parole term. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 498 (4th

Cir. 2020). Finally, we conclude that any collateral consequence of the prison disciplinary

conviction remaining on Pickens’ record is too speculative to satisfy Article III’s case-or-

controversy requirement.

Because Pickens’ release means that the district court can no longer grant any

effective relief, we dismiss this appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED