Townsend v. Rickard

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICARDO TOWNSEND 	:
Petitioner 	: 	No. 1:23-cv-01887
:
v. 	: 	(Judge Kane)
:
WARDEN RICKARD, 	:
Respondent 	:
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court is pro se Petitioner Ricardo Townsend (“Townsend”)’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
will dismiss the petition as moot.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Townsend commenced this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, which the Clerk of Court docketed on November 14, 2023. (Doc. No. 1.)1 At the
time Townsend filed his petition, he was incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution
Schuylkill (“FCI Schuylkill”). (Id. at 2.) In his petition, Townsend challenged a disciplinary
hearing officer (“DHO)’s issuance of a misconduct against him for possessing contraband and
the resulting sanction of a loss of forty-one (41) days of good time credits. (Id.)
On January 23, 2024, the Court issued an Order which, inter alia, directed Respondent to
file a response to Townsend’s habeas petition. (Doc. No. 8.) Respondent filed a timely response
in opposition to the petition on February 12, 2024. (Doc. No. 10.) Townsend filed a reply brief
in further support of his petition on April 9, 2024. (Doc. No. 13.)
1 When he filed his petition, Townsend neither sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis nor
remitted the filing fee. He later paid the filing fee. See (Unnumbered Docket Entry Between
Doc. Nos. 7 & 8).
Case 1:23-cv-01887-YK-SH Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On December 8, 2025, Respondent filed a suggestion of mootness based on Townsend’s
release from federal incarceration on July 16, 2025. (Doc. No. 12.) The following day, this
Court issued an Order which, inter alia, required Townsend to show cause within twenty (20)
days why the Court should not dismiss his Section 2241 habeas petition as moot due to his
apparent release from incarceration. (Doc. No. 13.) The Court also warned Townsend that if did
not timely respond to the Order, the Court would deem him to be unopposed to the dismissal of
his habeas petition as moot. (Id. at 3.) Townsend has not responded to this Order despite the
passage of more than twenty (20) days, and he has not sought an extension of time to file a
response.2
II. 	DISCUSSION
“Article III of the [United States] Constitution limits federal ‘judicial Power’ to the
adjudication of ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’” Abreu v. Superintendent Smithfield SCI, 971 F.3d
403, 406 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 137 (3d
Cir. 2009)). “For a case or controversy to exist, a petitioner, throughout each stage of the
litigation, ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the
[respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Id. (quoting DeFoy v.
McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 2005)). Consequently, “a habeas corpus petition
generally becomes moot when a prisoner is released from custody because the petitioner has
received the relief sought.” See id. (citing DeFoy, 393 F.3d at 441); see also Hamilton v.
Bromley, 862 F.3d 329, 335 (3d Cir. 2017) (explaining that mootness is “a doctrine that ‘ensures
that the litigant’s interest in the outcome continues to exist throughout the life of the lawsuit,’ and
2 On December 30, 2025, the Clerk of Court docketed the envelope containing the Court’s
December 9, 2025 Order, which was sent to Townsend. See (Doc. No. 19). It was returned to
the Clerk of Court as undeliverable due to Townsend’s release from incarceration. See (id.).
Case 1:23-cv-01887-YK-SH Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
which is ‘concerned with the court’s ability to grant effective relief’” (quoting Freedom from
Religion Found. Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold Sch. Dist., 832 F.3d 469, 476 (3d Cir. 2016) and
County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001))).
Nevertheless, a petitioner who has been released from custody “may obtain judicial
review of a [habeas] petition by showing that [they] continue[] to suffer from secondary or
collateral consequences of [their] conviction.” See Abreu, 971 F.3d at 406 (citations omitted).
Generally speaking, “collateral consequences will be presumed when the [petitioner] is attacking
[their] conviction while still serving the sentence imposed for that conviction [and] . . . where
the[y are] attacking that portion of [their] sentence that is still being served.” See id. (citing
United States v. Jackson, 523 F.3d 234, 242 (3d Cir. 2008)). Once a petitioner has been released,
however, the Court does “not presume that a conviction carries collateral consequences.” See
Abreu, 971 F.3d at 406 (citing Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2009)). Instead,
the Court “must ‘address[] the issue of collateral consequences in terms of the ‘likelihood’ that a
favorable decision would redress the injury or wrong.’” See id. (quoting Burkey, 556 F.3d at
148). For that reason, “[i]t is not enough if ‘collateral consequences proffered by the petitioner’
amount to ‘a possibility rather than a certainty or even a probability.’” See id. (quoting Burkey,
556 F.3d at 148).
In this case, Townsend is not currently incarcerated. As such, the instant petition in
which he challenges a disciplinary decision of the DHO mooted due to his release from BOP
incarceration. Although Townsend could still potentially obtain judicial review if he showed that
he continues to suffer from secondary or collateral consequences, he has failed to make such a
showing by responding to the Court’s Order. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Townsend’s
Section 2241 petition is moot.
Case 1:23-cv-01887-YK-SH Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Townsend’s Section 2241
petition as moot. An appropriate Order follows.
s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Case 1:23-cv-01887-YK-SH Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 4