HENDERSON v. THOMPSON

D. New Jersey

HENDERSON v. THOMPSON

DecidedMay 6, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-09034

StatusUnknown

This text of HENDERSON v. THOMPSON (HENDERSON v. THOMPSON) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

HENDERSON v. THOMPSON, (D.N.J. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MARCUS HENDERSON, | Civil Action No. 24-9034 (RK) Petitioner, : v. : MEMORANDUM & ORDER WARDEN R. THOMPSON, : Respondent. :

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Marcus Henderson’s (“Petitioner’’) submission of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly delayed his transfer to a residential reentry center (“RRC”) due to a lack of bed space. (See ECF No. 1, Pet. at 3-4.) On April 18, 2025, the government responded and requested that the Court dismiss the Petition as moot because Petitioner was transferred from Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Fort Dix to a residential reentry center on February 20, 2025. (See ECF No. 5; ECF No. 5-1, Declaration of Christina Clark at {§ 3-4.) Because Petitioner sought RRC placement and has been placed, “this Court [cannot] provide redress for any injury that he may have suffered.” Baumgarten v. Ortiz, No. 16-cv-6109 (RBK), 2017 WL 1839283, at *1 (D.N.J. May 8, 2017); see also Buczek v. Maiorana, 526 F. App’x 152, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2013) (summarily affirming dismissal of habeas petition as moot where petitioner challenged the timing of his RRC placement but was transferred to a RRC while the petition was pending); Giamo vy. Warden Rachel Thompson, No. 24-cv-8322-ESK, 2025 WL 1029607, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 4, 2025) (dismissing petition challenging timing of RRC placement

as moot where petitioner was transferred to a RCC while the petition was pending); Perri v. Warden of F.C.I. Fort Dix, No. 24-cv-6767 (KMW), 2024 WL 4981599, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2024) (same). Therefore, the Court grants the government’s request and dismisses the Petition as moot. Although Petitioner is no longer at FCI Fort Dix and his mail was returned as undeliverable (ECF No. 3), he has not provided the Court with an updated address. Therefore, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this Memorandum & Order to Petitioner at the address on file and close this matter accordingly, . IT IS, THEREFORE, on this oh day of May 2025, ORDERED that the government’s letter request to dismiss the Petition as MOOT (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED in light of the fact that Petitioner was transferred to a residential reentry center on February 20, 2025 and the Court is unable to provide any additional relief; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Memorandum & Order to Petitioner at the address on file and mark this case as CLOSED.

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MARCUS HENDERSON, | Civil Action No. 24-9034 (RK) Petitioner, : v. : MEMORANDUM & ORDER WARDEN R. THOMPSON, : Respondent. :

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Marcus Henderson’s (“Petitioner’’) submission of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly delayed his transfer to a residential reentry center (“RRC”) due to a lack of bed space. (See ECF No. 1, Pet. at 3-4.) On April 18, 2025, the government responded and requested that the Court dismiss the Petition as moot because Petitioner was transferred from Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Fort Dix to a residential reentry center on February 20, 2025. (See ECF No. 5; ECF No. 5-1, Declaration of Christina Clark at {§ 3-4.) Because Petitioner sought RRC placement and has been placed, “this Court [cannot] provide redress for any injury that he may have suffered.” Baumgarten v. Ortiz, No. 16-cv-6109 (RBK), 2017 WL 1839283, at *1 (D.N.J. May 8, 2017); see also Buczek v. Maiorana, 526 F. App’x 152, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2013) (summarily affirming dismissal of habeas petition as moot where petitioner challenged the timing of his RRC placement but was transferred to a RRC while the petition was pending); Giamo vy. Warden Rachel Thompson, No. 24-cv-8322-ESK, 2025 WL 1029607, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 4, 2025) (dismissing petition challenging timing of RRC placement

as moot where petitioner was transferred to a RCC while the petition was pending); Perri v. Warden of F.C.I. Fort Dix, No. 24-cv-6767 (KMW), 2024 WL 4981599, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2024) (same). Therefore, the Court grants the government’s request and dismisses the Petition as moot. Although Petitioner is no longer at FCI Fort Dix and his mail was returned as undeliverable (ECF No. 3), he has not provided the Court with an updated address. Therefore, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this Memorandum & Order to Petitioner at the address on file and close this matter accordingly, . IT IS, THEREFORE, on this oh day of May 2025, ORDERED that the government’s letter request to dismiss the Petition as MOOT (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED in light of the fact that Petitioner was transferred to a residential reentry center on February 20, 2025 and the Court is unable to provide any additional relief; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Memorandum & Order to Petitioner at the address on file and mark this case as CLOSED.

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HENDERSON v. THOMPSON, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-thompson-njd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack