Robert Lefebvre v. Director, Hampshire House Residential Reentry Center

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00258
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ROBERT LEFEBVRE

V. Case no.25-CV-258-LM-TSM

DIRECTOR, HAMPSHIRE HOUSE RESIDENTIAL REENTRY CENTER

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Self-represented Petitioner Robert Lefebvre filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") had retained him in its custody after his release date. The respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (Doc. No. 9), stating that Petitioner was released from custody on August 19, 2025. The BOP Online Inmate Locator confirms that Mr. Lefebvre was released from BOP custody on that date. See http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last viewed Sept. 29, 2025). That website is self- authenticating, and the information it conveys is properly subject to judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), 902(5); United States v. Rivera, 466 F. Supp. 3d 310, 313 (D. Conn. 2020). In light of Mr. Lefebvre's release, he has obtained all the relief this court could grant him in this matter, and therefore, his claims are moot. See Francis v. Maloney, 798 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the district judge should grant the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Mootness and deny the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 5) as moot. The Clerk should then enter judgment and close the case. The court should also grant Mr. Lefebvre’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 4) nunc pro tunc. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice. The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any objection within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report and Recommendation "are subject to review in the district court" and any issues "not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal." Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir. 1988)).

ful Talesha L. Saint-Marc United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 1, 2025 ce: Robert Lefebvre, pro se Counsel of Record