Steven Blakeney v. Kathy Huetter

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 28, 2020
Docket19-1474
StatusUnpublished

This text of Steven Blakeney v. Kathy Huetter (Steven Blakeney v. Kathy Huetter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steven Blakeney v. Kathy Huetter, (8th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-1474 ___________________________

Steven Blakeney

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

Kathy Huetter, Acting Residential Reentry Manager

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Filed: February 28, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Steven Blakeney claimed that the Bureau of Prisons should not have changed his early- release date. The district court 1 dismissed the petition without prejudice.

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. We conclude that this case has become moot because Blakeney has already been released from prison. A ruling that his early-release date was improperly changed would not affect his current term of supervised release, nor have we identified any potential collateral consequences. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 54–59 (2000) (holding that courts may not use excess prison time served to offset the length of a supervised-release term); Leonard v. Nix, 55 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (stating that physical release will moot a habeas petition based on the amount of time spent in custody unless there are “collateral consequences independent of the underlying conviction”). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

United States v. Johnson
529 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Stephen C. Leonard v. Crispus C. Nix
55 F.3d 370 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Steven Blakeney v. Kathy Huetter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-blakeney-v-kathy-huetter-ca8-2020.