United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Goodall, (“Petitioner”), presently incarcerated
at the Richland County Jail in Mansfield, Ohio, seeks the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. In his pro se application,
Petitioner alleges that his rights were violated by the
failure to timely extradite him back to the State of Ohio on
a Governor's Warrant to face a possession of heroin
charge in Richland County, Ohio. Respondent filed a motion to
dismiss. (Dkt. # 10.) For the reasons stated below, the
petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied as moot.
argues that Petitioner's claim that the State of Ohio
failed to execute the Governor's Warrant in a timely
manner and extradite Petitioner back to the State of Ohio to
face charges is moot because Petitioner has, by his own
admission, been extradited to Richland County, Ohio.
III, § 2 of the United States Constitution requires the
existence of a case or controversy through all stages of
federal judicial proceedings. This means that, throughout the
litigation, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be
threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant
and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,
494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). When there is no actual injury
remaining for the court to redress through the issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus, and thus, the court cannot affect the
matter at issue, the action is moot and the court has no
authority to render a decision. See Demis v.
Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 513 (6th Cir. 2009).
“[M]ootness results when events occur during the
pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to
grant the requested relief.” Carras v.
Williams, 807 F.2d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir. 1986).
has been returned to the State of Ohio. Accordingly, his
right to challenge the extradition is moot because he is no
longer being detained by the State of Michigan and thus, the
legality of his detention is no longer at issue. See
Barton v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1298 (6th Cir. 1997).
Additionally, Petitioner does not challenge his extradition
to Ohio (the demanding state), but rather argues extradition
should have occurred sooner. In other words, Petitioner
challenges Michigan's (the asylum state) failure to
comply with proper extradition procedures. In considering
cases where a fugitive was “returned to the demanding
state without strict compliance with extradition
procedures” the Sixth Circuit emphasized that the
“sole object of the provision of the constitution [the
extradition clause], and the act of congress to carry it into
effect, is to secure the surrender of persons accused of
crime, who have fled from the justice of the state whose laws
they are charged with violating.” Id. (holding
that the “failure to comply with established
[extradition] procedures does not deprive the fugitive of any
protected right”) (quoting Lascelles v. State,
148 U.S. 537, 542 (1893)). Therefore, Petitioner no longer
has a valid challenge to his extradition and the court will
dismiss the petition as moot. Having dismissed the petition,
Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
U.S.C. § 2253 governs appeals in § 2254
proceedings. Section 2253(c)(2) states, in pertinent part:
“A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” See also Lyons v. Ohio
Adult Parole Auth., 105 F.3d 1063, 1073 (6th Cir. 1997).
Furthermore, Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) states: “If an
appeal is taken by the applicant, the district judge who
rendered the judgment shall either issue a certificate of
appealability or state the reasons why such a certificate
should not issue.” See also Kincade v.
Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 953 (6th Cir. 1997). “The
district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule
11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; See also Strayhorn v.
Booker, 718 F.Supp.2d 846, 875 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability
because his request for habeas relief is now moot. See
McKinney-Bey v. Hawk-Sawyer, 69 F. App'x 113 (4th
IT IS ORDERED that John Goodall's petition for writ of
habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED as MOOT.
court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.
FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss (Dkt.
# 10) is DENIED as MOOT.
 When Petitioner filed his habeas
application, he was incarcerated at the Detroit Re-Entry
Center. According to the Richland County, Ohio Sheriff's
Office Inmate Locator, which may be accessed through its
and of which this court may take judicial notice, See
e.g. Marshek v. Eichenlaub, 266 F. App'x. 392 (6th
Cir. 2008), Petitioner has since been transferred to the
Richland County Jail in Mansfield, ...