ALD-136 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4409
___________
ISAN CONTANT,
Appellant
v.
CAMERON LINDSAY, Warden,
Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-11-cv-00204)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
____________________________________
Submitted on a Motion for Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 22, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 30, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Isan Contant appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania that denied his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1
§ 2241. We will dismiss the appeal as moot.
Contant’s § 2241 petition challenged the calculation of his criminal sentence by
the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Contant alleged that the BOP should have
credited his criminal sentence for time spent in custody of the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). In response, the respondents indicated that the United
States Attorney’s Office had contacted the BOP, and that the BOP had determined that
Contant was entitled to 8 days of credit against his criminal sentence. The respondents
explained that the additional 36 days of credit that Contant requested were not warranted,
because that time frame was prior to the date when ICE referred Contant for criminal
prosecution. The Magistrate Judge assigned to the case recommended that the District
Court dismiss the petition as moot with regard to the 8 days that Contant had been
credited, and that the Court deny the petition with respect to the request for the remaining
days of credit. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and additionally held that Contant’s petition should be denied because
he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Contant filed a timely notice of appeal. Several days later, Contant satisfied his
sentence and was released from BOP custody to ICE custody. 1 Appellees then filed a
motion for summary action, arguing that we should dismiss the appeal as moot or, in the
alternative, affirm the District Court’s order denying Contant’s habeas petition. Contant
1
Contant was removed to Trinidad and Tobago on February 8, 2012. See Motion to
Dismiss, Contant v. Holder, No. 12-1479, filed March 8, 2012.
2
argues that the appeal is not moot, because he intends to “file an action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and/or an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), so that he can recover monetary damages for his wrongful
imprisonment” for 36 days. He also argues that the appeal raises substantial questions
regarding the District Court’s denial of his petition.
In order to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal, we must assure ourselves that the
appeal raises an Article III § 2 case or controversy. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7
(1998). When a habeas petitioner’s sentence has expired, he must demonstrate that some
“collateral consequence” of the conviction still exists to show that a case or controversy
continues. Id. If an appellant is attacking an expired sentence, “collateral consequences
will not be presumed, but must be proven.” Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 148 (3d
Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Cottman, 142 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 1998)). The
Supreme Court has indicated that one may establish collateral consequences only when
there is a likelihood that a favorable decision would redress the injury or wrong. Burkey,
556 F.3d at 148 (citing Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) and
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). In his § 2241 petition, Contant sought credit
against his criminal sentence; he did not attack his conviction in any way. As he has
finished serving his sentence, a favorable decision here would not afford him the relief
that he sought. Although Contant argues that he intends to file a civil rights complaint
for monetary damages, such an allegation does not constitute the type of continuing
3
injury that is sufficient for mootness purposes. 2 See Okereke v. United States , 307 F.3d
117, 121 (3d Cir. 2002) (appellant must demonstrate that he has suffered or is threatened
with actual injury traceable to district court's decision that can be redressed by favorable
decision in appellate court).
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal. The order of the District
Court entered November 23, 2011 will be vacated and the matter remanded to the District
Court, with instructions to dismiss the habeas petition as moot. See United States v.
Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950).
2
It appears that if Contant were to file a civil rights lawsuit to contest the length of his
sentence, such suit would be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See
Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177-78 (3d Cir. 2006) (Heck’s favorable-
termination requirement applies and civil rights lawsuit not available to litigant for whom
habeas relief is no longer available); Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 210 (3d Cir. 2005)
(same). However, even if Contant’s appeal were not moot, we would affirm the District
Court’s holding on the merits, as we do not believe that he was in “official detention”
until ICE officials requested that he be prosecuted. Contant thus would not be able to
fulfill the favorable-termination requirement.
4