Atwood v. FCI Berlin, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Rodger Atwood, II
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-526-JL
FCI Berlin Warden
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Rodger Atwood, II, was a prisoner in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Berlin, New Hampshire (“FCI Berlin”) when he filed
this petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. 	In his petition (Doc. No. 1) and in his first
motion for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. No. 2), Mr. Atwood
challenged the BOP’s calculation of his First Step Act earned time
sentencing credits, sought immediate release from BOP custody, and
asked this court to shorten his term of supervised release to
compensate for excess time he has served.
In his second motion for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. No.
6), Mr. Atwood claimed that the BOP had revoked his December 8,
2022 date of furlough or release to a halfway house in retaliation
for his filing of this petition. 	He asked this court to order the
BOP to restore that December 8, 2022 halfway house placement on an
emergency basis.
The respondent filed a motion thereafter stating that on
December 12, 2022, the BOP released Mr. Atwood from BOP custody
Case 1:22-cv-00526-JL Document 10 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 3

2
altogether, mooting his claims. 	Mr. Atwood’s petition and his two
motions for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 6), as
well as the respondent’s motion to dismiss for mootness (Doc. No.
9), are before this court.
A prisoner’s release from BOP custody moots his § 2241
petition challenging the calculation of his time credits and the
length of the imprisonment component of his sentence. 	See Francis
v. Maloney, 798 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2015). 	This court cannot
backdate the date of a prisoner’s actual release to compensate for
excess time served or shorten his term of supervised release. 	See
id. at 39. 	Furthermore, a prisoner’s “challenge to prison
conditions or policies is generally rendered moot by his transfer
or release,” and “‘absent a claim for damages, he no longer has a
legally cognizable interest in a judicial decision on the merits of
his claim’” for injunctive relief. 	Ford v. Bender, 768 F.3d 15, 29
(1st Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Because of Mr. Atwood’s December 12 release from BOP custody,
this court cannot order the adjustment of his sentence credits,
shorten his term of supervised release, or reinstate his December 8
date of furlough or release to a halfway house as a remedy.
Accordingly, the district judge should grant the respondent’s
motion to dismiss and deny Mr. Atwood’s § 2241 petition and motions
for emergency injunctive relief as moot.
Case 1:22-cv-00526-JL Document 10 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 3

3
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends
that the district judge grant the respondent’s motion to dismiss
for mootness (Doc. No. 9) and deny the petitioner’s § 2241 petition
(Doc. No. 1) and his motions for emergency relief (Doc. Nos. 2, 6)
as moot. 	The district judge should direct the Clerk to enter
judgment and close the case.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	The objection
period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file any objection
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district
court’s Order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163,
168 (1st Cir. 2016). 	Only those issues raised in the written
objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any
issues “‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on
appeal.’” 	Id. (citations omitted).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
January 19, 2023
cc: 	Rodger Atwood, II, pro se
Seth R. Aframe, Esq.
Case 1:22-cv-00526-JL Document 10 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 3