Rhodes v. Judiscak
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15416
10th Cir.2011Background
- Rhodes was convicted in 1993 and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release.
- In 2010, Rhodes filed a § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his sentence.
- Rhodes had been released from prison by the time the district court addressed mootness, though he remained under supervised release.
- Rhodes argued the petition could redress collateral consequences by potentially shortening his supervised release if the sentence were corrected, or via § 3583(e)(1) relief.
- The district court dismissed the petition as moot, concluding the court could not shorten Rhodes’ supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 2241 petition is moot given Rhodes’ release | Rhodes contends collateral consequences remain redressable. | The court cannot redress the length of supervise d release from a completed sentence. | Petition moot; cannot redress injury via § 2241. |
| Whether a favorable ruling could indirectly affect supervised release through § 3583(e)(1) | A ruling might aid later § 3583(e)(1) relief. | This court cannot modify supervised release to compensate a longer prison term as a matter of § 2241. | Ruling would be speculative and not redressable; mootness persists. |
| Whether the injury Rhodes complains of is redressable in this forum | A decision could provide ammunition for future relief. | Indirect or advisory opinions do not satisfy redressability. | Inability to provide direct redress; petition is moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2006) (discusses mootness when §3583(e)(1) relief may lessen sentence)
- Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010) (over-incarceration as potential factor for §3583(e)(1) relief)
- Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (redressability and speculative relief under mootness)
- Cleckler v. United States, 410 F. App’x 279 (11th Cir. 2011) (not moot where supervised release could change on appeal)
- United States v. Bundy, 391 F. App’x 886 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (mootness where relief would be speculative)
- Nova Health Sys. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2005) (redressability requirement in mootness analysis)
- City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (constitutional limits; advisory opinions are insufficient for redress)
- Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (1983) (injury must be redressable by a court with power)