Taleek Sherrod Swinney v. Warden John Gilley, et al.

W.D. Virginia

Taleek Sherrod Swinney v. Warden John Gilley, et al.

DecidedMarch 27, 2026

Docket7:24-cv-00741

StatusUnknown

This text of Taleek Sherrod Swinney v. Warden John Gilley, et al. (Taleek Sherrod Swinney v. Warden John Gilley, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taleek Sherrod Swinney v. Warden John Gilley, et al., (W.D. Va. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

CLERKS OFFICE US DISTRICT COUF AT ROANOKE, VA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 27 2026 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AURnn, □□□□ □□□□□ ROANOKE DIVISION ey: /s/ M. Poff DEPUTY CLERK TALEEK SHERROD SWINNEY, ) Petitioner, ) Civil Case No. 7:24-cv-00741 Vv. ) ) WARDEN JOHN GILLEY, et al., ) By: Elizabeth K. Dillon Respondents. ) Chief United States District Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Taleek Swinney, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Swinney’s petition challenges the designation by the Bureau of Prisons that Swinney has refused to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP Refusal). (Habeas Pet., Dkt. No. 1; Mem. in Support, Dkt. Nos. 2, 2-1.) Swinney asks the court to order that he be removed from “IFRP Refusal” status and “place him on IFRP Exempt and/or return him to his regular position.” (Dkt. No. 2.) Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 6.) In its motion, respondent indicates that on February 27, 2025, Swinney voluntarily requested to participate in IFRP. (Dkt. No. 7-1, Lane Decl. § 8.) As such, Swinney was removed from IFRP Refusal status. (/d.)' Therefore, Swinney’s habeas petition will be dismissed as moot. See Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (concluding that a claim becomes moot where “an event occurs that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief to the plaintiff”); United States v. Kettler, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018) (explaining that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over moot claims).

' Swinney did not respond to respondent’s motion and has not contested this assertion. The court notes that Swinney submitted a letter dated August 12, 2025, inquiring about the status of this case and stating he “never received the respondents response nor any judgment or order that was rendered.” (Dkt. No. 10.) The court transmitted a copy of the docket sheet to Swinney, and the court has received no further filings from Swinney. (See id.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall strike this action from the active docket of the court and transmit a copy of this order to petitioner and to counsel for respondent.

Entered: March 27, 2026.

/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon Elizabeth K. Dillon Chief United States District Judge

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

CLERKS OFFICE US DISTRICT COUF AT ROANOKE, VA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 27 2026 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AURnn, □□□□ □□□□□ ROANOKE DIVISION ey: /s/ M. Poff DEPUTY CLERK TALEEK SHERROD SWINNEY, ) Petitioner, ) Civil Case No. 7:24-cv-00741 Vv. ) ) WARDEN JOHN GILLEY, et al., ) By: Elizabeth K. Dillon Respondents. ) Chief United States District Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Taleek Swinney, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Swinney’s petition challenges the designation by the Bureau of Prisons that Swinney has refused to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP Refusal). (Habeas Pet., Dkt. No. 1; Mem. in Support, Dkt. Nos. 2, 2-1.) Swinney asks the court to order that he be removed from “IFRP Refusal” status and “place him on IFRP Exempt and/or return him to his regular position.” (Dkt. No. 2.) Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 6.) In its motion, respondent indicates that on February 27, 2025, Swinney voluntarily requested to participate in IFRP. (Dkt. No. 7-1, Lane Decl. § 8.) As such, Swinney was removed from IFRP Refusal status. (/d.)' Therefore, Swinney’s habeas petition will be dismissed as moot. See Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (concluding that a claim becomes moot where “an event occurs that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief to the plaintiff”); United States v. Kettler, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018) (explaining that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over moot claims).

' Swinney did not respond to respondent’s motion and has not contested this assertion. The court notes that Swinney submitted a letter dated August 12, 2025, inquiring about the status of this case and stating he “never received the respondents response nor any judgment or order that was rendered.” (Dkt. No. 10.) The court transmitted a copy of the docket sheet to Swinney, and the court has received no further filings from Swinney. (See id.)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall strike this action from the active docket of the court and transmit a copy of this order to petitioner and to counsel for respondent.

Entered: March 27, 2026.

/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon Elizabeth K. Dillon Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Taleek Sherrod Swinney v. Warden John Gilley, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taleek-sherrod-swinney-v-warden-john-gilley-et-al-vawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack