Berry v. Fox
704 F. App'x 789
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Duane Berry was indicted in the Eastern District of Michigan under 18 U.S.C. § 1038 for perpetrating false information and hoaxes.
- The Michigan district court found Berry suffered a mental disease rendering him unable to assist in his defense and committed him to the Attorney General for hospitalization to determine competency.
- While confined at the Federal Transfer Center (FTC) in Oklahoma City, Berry filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his federal commitment.
- Before the district court ruled, Berry was transferred to a Michigan county jail; he maintained the transfer was temporary and sought return to federal custody to pursue his challenge.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice as moot because Berry was no longer in Bureau of Prisons custody and the court could not grant effectual relief to the FTC warden; the district court adopted that recommendation.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal without prejudice, agreeing that transfer to state custody rendered the federal habeas petition moot and denying pending requests for judicial notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of § 2241 petition after transfer | Berry: transfer to state custody was temporary; district court retains jurisdiction and can order return to federal custody so he can pursue his claim | Respondent: transfer to state custody means court cannot provide effectual relief to federal warden; petition is moot | Petition is moot after transfer to state custody; dismissal without prejudice affirmed |
| Need for certificate of appealability | Berry: appeal challenges jurisdiction/transfer and need not show COA | Respondent: implicit that COA not required | Court: COA not required for this construction; appeal proceeds without COA |
| Jurisdiction under § 2241 | Berry: district court had jurisdiction when petition filed at FTC | Respondent: jurisdiction attaches where confined when filed but effectual relief is required | Court: jurisdiction initially attached but mootness defeats relief once transferred |
| Due process claim regarding removal | Berry: removal violated Fifth Amendment due process | Respondent: transfer removed possibility of injunctive relief on federal custody | Court: did not reach merits; dismissal for mootness prevented adjudication of due process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Kastner, [citation="507 F. App'x 801"] (10th Cir.) (transfer to nonfederal custody can render federal habeas petition moot)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (effectual relief requirement and principles governing habeas jurisdiction)
- Montez v. McKenna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 2000) (certificate of appealability standards and construction for pro se petitions)