Ashok Chhibba v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4728
________________
ASHOK CHHIBBA
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN,
in his official capacity as director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;
WARDEN JOHN NASH, in his official capacity as
Warden of Federal Correctional Institution
_______________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-04874)
District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 14, 2005
Before: ALITO, SMITH AND COWEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed October 19, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Ashok Chhibba appeals from the District Court’s order summarily dismissing his
habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his habeas petition, Chhibba
challenges the determination of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that he is eligible for pre-

-- 1 of 3 --

2
release placement at a Community Corrections Center (CCC) for only the last ten percent
of his term of imprisonment. For the following reasons, we will dismiss the appeal as
moot.
When he filed his habeas petition, Chhibba was incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, serving a sentence of 24 months
imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On
February 11, 2004, the BOP notified Chhibba that his projected release date is October
14, 2005. The BOP also informed Chhibba that he is eligible for pre-release placement at
a CCC beginning August 13, 2005. According to Chhibba, the BOP based its calculation
on its interpretation that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) authorizes pre-release to a CCC for the
lesser of the last ten percent of the time to be served or six months.
In October 2004, Chhibba challenged the BOP’s decision by filing a § 2241 habeas
corpus petition in the District Court. Without ordering service of the petition or receiving
a response from the BOP, the District Court rejected Chhibba’s position and summarily
dismissed his habeas petition. Chhibba appeals. While his appeal has been pending,
Chhibba has been placed in a CCC in New York. He is still scheduled for complete
release from custody on October 14, 2005.
Before we can exercise jurisdiction, we must determine whether the appeal
presents an Article III case or controversy. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).
Even if a case or controversy existed throughout the District Court proceedings, we must

-- 2 of 3 --

3
decide that one currently exists. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 121 (3d Cir.
2002). The relevant question is whether Chhibba “has suffered or is threatened with an
actual injury traceable to the District Court’s decision that can be redressed by a favorable
decision here.” Id. If not, we must dismiss the appeal as moot. Id.
Here, Chhibba sought relief in the form of placement at a CCC for the last six
months of his sentence. As noted previously, he is now in custody at a CCC. Even if we
were to render a decision in favor of Chhibba, we can provide no redress for any injury he
may have suffered. In short, Chhibba’s appeal has been rendered moot by his placement
in a CCC, and we must dismiss it. All pending motions are denied as moot.

-- 3 of 3 --