Simon v. United States

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

        December 4, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1330 



                                    CHARLES SIMON,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Charles Simon on brief pro se.
            _____________

            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Emily R. Schulman,
            ________________                                _________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________



Per Curiam.  By way of this habeas corpus petition under
                 __________



            28 U.S.C.     2241, petitioner  Charles  Simon sought  to  be



            awarded 120  days of "meritorious  good time credit"  that he



            alleged had  been unlawfully  withheld from him.   Petitioner



            has since been released from prison.   As there is no  longer



            any  available relief  that  can be  judicially awarded,  his



            petition  is  moot.   See, e.g.,  Fendler  v. U.S.  Bureau of
                                  ___  ____   _______     _______________



            Prisons,  846  F.2d  550,  555  (9th  Cir. 1988);  Bailey  v.
            _______                                            ______



            Southerland, 821  F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).
            ___________



            We  accordingly  vacate  the  district  court's  judgment and



            remand with directions to dismiss the action on the ground of



            mootness.  See, e.g., United  States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S.
                       ___  ____  ______________    ___________



            36,  39-40 (1950); Motta v. District Director of INS, 61 F.3d
                               _____    ________________________



            117, 118-19 (1st Cir. 1995).



                 Vacated  and  remanded with  directions  to  dismiss the
                 ________________________________________________________



            action as moot.
            _______________


-2-