Scott Witzke v. Shawn Brewer, 849 F.3d 338

Petitioner Scott Witzke was released on parole in May 2013, later arrested for alleged parole violations, and the Michigan Parole Board revoked his parole in September 2014 based on a fraudulent-check violation.
Witzke challenged the parole revocation in a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging a due-process violation for lack of an in-person hearing before the decision maker.
The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
The Sixth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on whether exhaustion was required.
While the appeal was pending, the Michigan Parole Board re-released Witzke on parole; he will remain a parolee until May 2017 and has served the period of reincarceration imposed by the 2014 revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Witzke's habeas challenge to the 2014 parole revocation remains a live Article III controversy after his re-release on parole	Witzke argued Spencer does not apply because he remains "in custody" as a parolee and thus his § 2254 claim is live	State argued re-release eliminated any remediable injury, rendering the appeal moot under Article III and Spencer	The court held the appeal is moot: in-custody status alone does not overcome mootness where reincarceration is ended and no continuing collateral consequence is shown
Whether the speculative risk that the 2014 revocation will be used against Witzke in future parole decisions suffices to avoid mootness	Witzke claimed it is likely the prior revocation will be considered by the Michigan Parole Board and harm future parole outcomes	State argued such future harm is speculative and insufficient under Spencer’s collateral-consequences standard	The court held the asserted future harm is too conjectural to preserve a live controversy; Spencer controls and dismissal is required

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (parole-revocation challenges become moot once reincarceration ends absent concrete collateral consequences)
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (an actual controversy must exist at all stages of review)
Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (habeas corpus scope and case-or-controversy principles)
Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003) (mootness doctrine in habeas appeals requires dismissal if controversy ceases)
Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968) (presumption of collateral consequences for released petitioners challenging convictions)
Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982) (prior revocation may be one factor among many in parole determinations)