Edward Semulka v. Bur Prisons

Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-13-2009 Edward Semulka v. Bur Prisons Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-3403 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Edward Semulka v. Bur Prisons" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1740. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1740 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3403 ___________ EDWARD SEMULKA, Appellant v. BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN JERRY MARTINEZ __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-01290) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo __________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 10, 2008 Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Filed: March 13, 2009) ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ PER CURIAM Edward Semulka appeals the District Court’s order denying his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The procedural history of this case and the details of Semulka’s claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s memorandum order, and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Semulka was scheduled to be released to a Community Corrections Center (“CCC”) on June 3, 2008. A few days before his scheduled release, he was informed that he would not be released to the CCC due to three open warrants. On July 7, 2008, Semulka filed § 2241 petition challenging this determination. The District Court ordered a response and denied the petition. Semulka then filed a timely notice of appeal. In his § 2241 petition, Semulka requested that the District Court order his release to the CCC. On November 28, 2008, Semulka was released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Because there is no effective relief that this Court can grant, we will dismiss the appeal as moot. See In re Cantwell, 659 F. 2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir. 1981)(“[A]n appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur during the pendency of the appeal which prevent the appellate court from granting any effective relief.”) 2