Marshek v. Eichenlaub

266 F. App'x 392
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 25, 2008
Docket07-1246
StatusUnpublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 266 F. App'x 392 (Marshek v. Eichenlaub) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marshek v. Eichenlaub, 266 F. App'x 392 (6th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Tyson Eugene Marshek, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. By his petition, and in this appeal, Marshek challenges regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) which categorically preclude a federal prisoner from being placed in, or transferred to, a Community Corrections Center (“CCC”), more commonly known as a halfway house, except during the lesser of six months or the last ten percent of his sentence. Marshek requests that we reverse the district court and instruct BOP to “immediately review” and reconsider his application for a transfer to a CCC. However, according to BOP’s Inmate Locator — which may be accessed through its official website (www.bop.gov), and of which we take judicial notice — Marshek was transferred to a CCC during the pendency of this appeal.

In Brock v. United States Department of Justice, 256 Fed.Appx. 748 (6th Cir.2007), another panel of this Court confronted the same situation now facing us. The petitioner there filed a habeas petition challenging the BOP regulations governing CCC placement. The Brock panel looked to the BOP Inmate Locator and discovered that the petitioner was transferred to a CCC (and later released from custody) while the appeal was pending. The court held, sua sponte, that the case was moot because it was unable to grant the relief being requested and no injury remained *393 that could be redressed with a favorable decision. Id. at 750-51 (citing Elwood v. Sanders, 152 Fed.Appx. 558 (8th Cir.2005); Chhibba v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 154 Fed.Appx. 279 (3d Cir.2005)). We agree with this analysis and result. This appeal has clearly been rendered moot by Marshek’s placement in a CCC. We must, and do, dismiss his appeal. All pending motions are also denied as moot.

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

Related

Untitled Case
M.D. Alabama, 2026
Junod v. Rardin
E.D. Michigan, 2025
Antoine v. Rardin
E.D. Michigan, 2025
Frierson v. Rardin
E.D. Michigan, 2025
Grichishkin v. Rardin
E.D. Michigan, 2024
Cook v. Hemingway
E.D. Michigan, 2022
Jackson v. Hemingway
E.D. Michigan, 2022
Teri Jordan v. Commissioner
2019 T.C. Memo. 15 (U.S. Tax Court, 2019)
Matthew Eric Baham & Jennifer Michelle Baham v. Commissioner
2017 T.C. Summary Opinion 85 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Navelski v. International Paper Co.
244 F. Supp. 3d 1275 (N.D. Florida, 2017)
Patricia Arroyo DDS, Corp. v. Comm'r
2017 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 21 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Binns v. Comm'r
2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 90 (U.S. Tax Court, 2016)
CNT Investors, LLC v. Comm'r
144 T.C. No. 11 (U.S. Tax Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 F. App'x 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshek-v-eichenlaub-ca6-2008.