IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10502
Conference Calendar
CHARLES NGI TAMFU,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL;
ANTHONY MEDELLIN, Airpark Unit Facility Director
of the Big Spring Correctional Center,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CV-33
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Ngi Tamfu, federal prisoner number 33436-077,
appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which
he challenged the conditions of his confinement at the Airpark
and Flightline Units and also asserted that he was improperly
confined at a facility for deportable aliens even though he is a
U.S. citizen. Tamfu argues that a recent transfer from the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-10502
-2-
Airpark Unit did not render his claims moot because he sought
declaratory relief and the respondents could transfer him back to
Airpark. Tamfu's argument is speculative and without merit. See
Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002); Herman v.
Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001); Hernandez v.
Garrison, 916 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1990).
Tamfu also argues that the district court erroneously
dismissed his challenges to the conditions of confinement based
on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We need not
decide the exhaustion issue. Because Tamfu is no longer
incarcerated at the Airpark or Flightline Units, any claims for
declaratory or injunctive relief are moot. See Edwards v.
Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 776 (5th Cir. 2000); Pembroke v. Wood
County, Texas, 981 F.2d 225, 228 (5th Cir. 1993).
Finally, Tamfu argues that the district court erroneously
denied his motion to recuse the district judge. Tamfu has failed
to show that a reasonable person who knew all of the
circumstances would harbor any doubts about the judge's
impartiality. See Levitt v. University of Texas at El Paso, 847
F.2d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 1988); see also United States v.
Harrelson, 754 F.2d 1153, 1165 (5th Cir. 1985).
AFFRIMED.