Kenneth R. James v. T. C. Outlaw

Eighth Circuit

Kenneth R. James v. T. C. Outlaw

142 F. App'x 274

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 2005

Docket04-2873

StatusUnpublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 142 F. App'x 274 (Kenneth R. James v. T. C. Outlaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenneth R. James v. T. C. Outlaw, 142 F. App'x 274 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth James appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he had alleged the wrongful revocation of good-time credits. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the case is moot: James was released from prison while the appeal was pending, return of the good-time credits at issue would have no effect on his current term of supervised release, and at this time we see no collateral consequences from the challenged disciplinary action. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 54-59, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) (supervised release begins when prisoner is released from prison; excess prison time served cannot offset term of supervised release); cf. Leonard v. Nix, 55 F.3d 370, 372-73 (8th Cir.1995) (release of prisoner (subsequently reincarcerated) did not moot habeas petition where challenged disciplinary had collateral consequences).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth James appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he had alleged the wrongful revocation of good-time credits. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the case is moot: James was released from prison while the appeal was pending, return of the good-time credits at issue would have no effect on his current term of supervised release, and at this time we see no collateral consequences from the challenged disciplinary action. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 54-59, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) (supervised release begins when prisoner is released from prison; excess prison time served cannot offset term of supervised release); cf. Leonard v. Nix, 55 F.3d 370, 372-73 (8th Cir.1995) (release of prisoner (subsequently reincarcerated) did not moot habeas petition where challenged disciplinary had collateral consequences).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F. App'x 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-r-james-v-t-c-outlaw-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack