Pinsky v. Warden of the Gilmer Federal Correctional Institution, 2:11-cv-00066

Petitioner Pinsky, proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and paid the filing fee.
At filing, he was confined at Gilmer FCI in West Virginia for a seven-month sentence for a supervised release violation.
Petition challenges the denial of placement in a Residential Re-entry Center (RRC) and alleged misapplication of § 3621(b) factors.
Initial denial was based on perceived financial resources and community ties negating need for RRC.
A later finding purportedly precluded RRC placement because incarceration involved a supervised release violation, and petitioner sought reconsideration for RRC placement.
He was released from custody on December 1, 2011, rendering further relief impossible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition is moot due to petitioner's release	Pinsky seeks RRC placement relief	Warden asserts relief cannot be granted	Petition is moot; dismissal warranted

Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (jurisdictional limits in case or controversy; mootness framework referenced)
Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Co., 77 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1996) (mootness where no viable relief can be afforded)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (habeas and custody-focused relief principles)
Leonard v. Hickey, 2009 WL 1939174 (S.D.W.Va. 2009) (quoted for habeas relief scope, though WL citation)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (statutory timing and procedures for objections in reviewing magistrate recommendations)
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985) (procedural avenues for objections to recommendations)
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (cert. denied; applicability to habeas context)