Salgado v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

220 F. App'x 256

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 22, 2007
• Docket: 06-20011
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Maria Christina Salgado, formerly federal prisoner # 13556-179, appeals the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition wherein she argued that cancellation of the Intensive Corrections Center (ICC)/Boot Camp program violated the “notice-and-comment” requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act, her due process rights, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. Salgado sought a reduction in “actual prison time” amounting to her immediate re lease from prison. The district court denied her petition on the merits.

Salgado was released from prison while the instant appeal was pending. An appeal is not moot simply because a § 2241 petitioner is no longer in custody. Brown v. Resor, 407 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir.1969). However, an action is moot when the court cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987) (holding that an appeal from the denial of a § 2241 application was moot because “[t]he main thrust” of Bailey’s application was to be released from confinement, and “[b]ecause Bailey was released ... this court [could] no longer provide him with that relief’); see also Willy v. Administrative Review Board, 423 F.3d 483, 494 n. 50 (5th Cir.2005) (“If an event occurs that prevents us from granting ‘any effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party, the controversy is moot, and the appeal must be dismissed.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Salgado admits that there were no errors at her sentencing. Rather, the main thrust of Salgado’s petition is to be released from her confinement based on purported errors that occurred after she was sentenced. See Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278. Salgado’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.