United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Procedure for Filing Objections
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. Mr. Logan - or any party - may file written objections to this Recommendation.
Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding of fact believed to be wrong and describe the evidence that supports that belief.
An original and one copy of objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. A copy will be furnished to the opposing party.
If no objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.
Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR XXXXX-XXXX
Petitioner Tony Logan filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 25, 2014, claiming that his parole was improperly revoked. (Docket entry #2) Arkansas Department of Correction Director Ray Hobbs responded to the petition, arguing, in part, that the case is moot because Mr. Logan has again been paroled. (#5) On April 28, 2014, Mr. Logan replied, but did not address the mootness issue. (#7) On May 7, 2014, Director Hobbs supplemented his response to confirm that Mr. Logan, indeed, was paroled after the petition was filed. (#11) On May 13, 2014, Mr. Logan filed a change of address, confirming that he is currently again on parole. (#13)
In a May 14, 2014 Order, the Court noted that Mr. Logan's release appeared to moot his habeas corpus petition and gave him fourteen days to explain why his petition should not be dismissed. (#14) Mr. Logan has not responded to the May 14 Order, and the time to do so has passed. Because the petition is now moot, it should be DISMISSED, without prejudice.
Mr. Logan filed this petition while incarcerated after the State had revoked his parole. He did not attack the underlying conviction that led to his incarceration, but rather, only the revocation of his parole. (#2)
To sustain a challenge to parole revocation, Mr. Logan must show a "continuing injury" resulting from the alleged wrongful revocation. Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 7-8, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983 (1998). At the time of filing, his incarceration was the injury ...