Nicholas Ferrone v. W. Holzapfel, Warden

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00557
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BECKLEY DIVISION

NICHOLAS FERRONE,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5:24-cv-00557

W. HOLZAPFEL, Warden,

Respondent.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

On October 9, 2024, Petitioner, an inmate who was then housed at FCI Beckley, in Beaver, West Virginia, acting pro se, filed an Application Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody (hereinafter “Petitioner’s section 2241 petition”). (ECF No. 1). Petitioner paid the applicable $5.00 filing fee. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Frank W. Volk, Chief United States District Judge, and it has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). This is Petitioner’s second § 2241 petition seeking application of earned Federal Time Credits (“FTC”) under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”). (ECF No. 1).1 Here, Petitioner seeks the application of 365 days of FTC that he had previously earned. (Id.)

1 Petitioner previously filed another § 2241 petition in this Court, in Case No. 5:23-cv-669, seeking application of any earned FTC. In that matter, Respondent asserted that Petitioner was not then entitled to such application due to failure to exhaust required administrative remedies and his medium risk of recidivism classification. By separate Proposed Findings and Recommendation, the undersigned has also recommended dismissal of that § 2241 petition as moot due to Petitioner’s release from BOP custody. However, before the undersigned had ordered any briefing on this petition, Petitioner was released from Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) custody, rendering his petition moot.2 ANALYSIS The United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual cases or controversies that are present at all stages of review. U. S. Const., art. III, § 2;

Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988); Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). When a case or controversy no longer exists, the claim is said to be “moot.” In the context of habeas corpus, a case is rendered moot when the inmate has been released from the custody being challenged, without collateral consequences, and the court can no longer remedy the inmate’s grievance. See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Alston v. Adams, 178 F. App’x 295, 2006 WL 1194751 (4th Cir. 2007); Alvarez v. Conley, 145 F. App’x 428, 2005 WL 2500659 (4th Cir. 2005); Smithhart v. Gutierrez, No. 3:06-cv-11, 2007 WL 2897942 (N.D.W. Va. 2007). As noted above, Petitioner has been released from BOP custody without any collateral consequences related to his claims; thus, this federal court is no longer able to grant his requested relief. Therefore, the undersigned proposes that the presiding District

Judge FIND that Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is moot due to his release from BOP custody without collateral consequences. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the presiding District Judge DENY AS MOOT Petitioner’s Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1), and dismiss this civil action from the docket of the court.

2 According to the inmate locator on the BOP website, www.bop.gov, Petitioner was released from BOP custody on or about July 24, 2025. The parties are notified that this “Proposed Findings and Recommendation” is hereby filed, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable Frank W. Volk, Chief United States District Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Rules 6(e) and 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen days (making of objections), and then three days (service/mailing), from the date of filing this “Proposed Findings and Recommendation” within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the “Proposed Findings and Recommendation” to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted by the presiding District Judge for good cause shown. Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Copies of such objections shall be provided to the opposing parties and Chief Judge Volk. The Clerk is directed to file this “Proposed Findings and Recommendation,” to mail a copy of the same to Petitioner at his last known address, and to transmit a copy to counsel of record.

October 10, 2025 / wee A anl< a oS Dwane L. Tinsley —._ United States Magistrate Judge