CLD-044 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3505
___________
RICHARD STEVEN OLIVARES,
Appellant
v.
D. ZICKEFOOSE, WARDEN
____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-06442)
District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 18, 2020
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 7, 2010)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM.
In December 2009, Richard Steven Olivares, an inmate serving a federal sentence
at FCI-Fort Dix in New Jersey, filed this habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 to challenge his Unit Team‟s recommendation that he spend the final 150-180 days
of his incarceration at a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”). According to Olivares, the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) erred in various ways by failing to recommend him for the
maximum twelve-month RRC placement. As relief, Olivares asked the District Court to
order his placement in an RRC “no later than January 16, 2010.”1 Respondent filed an
answer arguing that relief should be denied because the BOP did not abuse its discretion
in reaching its individualized determination regarding Olivares‟s RRC placement.
While the habeas petition was pending, Olivares was transferred to an RRC in
Florida on July 21, 2010. Respondent filed notice of the transfer and argued that the
habeas petition should be dismissed as moot. The District Court agreed that there was no
longer a live case or controversy, and it dismissed for mootness. Olivares appeals.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary
over a mootness determination. Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009).
We discern no error in the dismissal for mootness.
“Article III [of the Constitution] extends the Judicial Power of the United States
only to „cases‟ and „controversies.‟” Unalachtigo Band of Nanticoke Lenni Lenape
Nation v. Corzine, 606 F.3d 126, 129 (3d Cir. 2010). “Article III requires that a
plaintiff‟s claim be live not just when he first brings the suit but throughout the entire
litigation, and once the controversy ceases to exist the court must dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction.” Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992). Olivares
1
Olivares has a projected release date of January 16, 2011.
2
“must demonstrate that he has suffered or is threatened with an actual injury … that can
be redressed by a favorable decision here.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 121
(3d Cir. 2002).
Olivares sought habeas relief to overturn the BOP‟s pre-release custody
determination and to compel an earlier RRC placement than that recommended by his
Unit Team. We agree with the District Court that Olivares‟s transfer to an RRC rendered
his habeas petition moot. See Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 513 (6th Cir. 2009). Even
if the District Court were to render a decision in Olivares‟s favor regarding RRC
placement, it could provide no redress for any injury that Olivares may have suffered
from the BOP‟s action. Further, Olivares has not asserted any “collateral consequences”
to overcome the mootness of his petition. Cf. id. at 516 (“Because Demis can point to no
„collateral consequences‟ that are the result of his delayed placement in [an RRC], and
certainly none … which this Court could remedy in the habeas context, Demis‟ reliance
on the „collateral consequences‟ exception to mootness is unavailing.”).
In sum, because this appeal presents “no substantial question,” 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6,
we will summarily affirm the District Court‟s judgment.2
2
Appellee‟s pending motion for summary affirmance is denied as unnecessary.
3