Renouard v. Eischen

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JACOB PARKER RENOUARD,
Petitioner,
v.
B. EISCHEN
FPC-Duluth Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-CV-1569 (ECT/JFD)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Mr. Jacob Renouard’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet. at 1, Dkt. No. 1.) The case has been
referred 	to 	the 	undersigned 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	for 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1.
Because Mr. Renouard is no longer in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) the
Court recommends denying his petition as moot.
In his petition, Mr. Renouard claims that the BOP failed to apply the correct number
of First Step Act time credits to his sentence because it excluded periods of time between
his sentencing date and arrival at his designated institution during which he was transferred
between BOP institutions. (Pet. at 1-2.) If these periods of time were credited, Mr.
Renouard argues, he would be eligible to have 82 days applied to his statutory sentence as
FTCs (Id. at 1.)
Mr. Renouard filed this habeas petition on April 10, 2025. (Pet. at 7.) His petition
was received by the Court on April 17, 2025. (Id. at 1.) Respondent filed his response on
CASE 0:25-cv-01569-ECT-JFD Doc. 13 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
May 22, 2025. (Resp’t’s Mem. at 32, Dkt. No. 6.) By then, Mr. Renouard’s projected
release date had been moved to November 7, 2025, based on his continued accrual of time
credits. (Id. at 2.) On February 17, 2026, Respondent submitted a Declaration (Dkt. No.
11) confirming that Mr. Renouard was released from BOP’s custody on August 25, 2025,
pursuant to the First Step Act. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal
courts to actual, ongoing “cases” and “controversies.” Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466,
469 (8th Cir. 2000). The “case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of
federal judicial proceedings.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). “When, during the
course of litigation, the issues presented in a case ‘lose their life because of the passage of
time or a change in circumstances . . . and a federal court can no longer grant effective
relief,’ the case is considered moot.” Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723 (8th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Haden, 212 F.3d at 469). When a case becomes moot, a federal court cannot
“address the merits because any opinion [the court] would issue would be merely
advisory.” In re Search Warrants Issued in Connection with Investigation of S. Cent.
Career Ctr., 487 F.3d 1190, 1192 (8th Cir. 2007).
Mr. Renouard’s petition became moot when he was released from BOP’s custody
on August 25, 2025 because, upon his release, the Court could no longer grant the relief he
sought. See Ali, 419 F.3d at 723. Additionally, no exceptions to mootness apply here. Mr.
Renouard has no cognizable collateral injury. See Scheper v. Rios, No. 19-CV-402
(MJD/ECW), 2020 WL 4060729, at *3 (D. Minn. June 5, 2020) (concluding that there
were no collateral consequences when the petitioner was “not transferred to home
CASE 0:25-cv-01569-ECT-JFD Doc. 13 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
confinement as quickly as he thought he should have been”), report and recommendation
adopted, 2020 WL 4059875 (D. Minn. July 20, 2020). Mr. Renouard will not be
incarcerated again for the same conduct, so this is also not a matter that is capable of
repetition yet evading review. See Morrow v. Eischen, 23-cv-2137 (JMB/DTS), 2024 WL
1939196, at *2 (D. Minn. Apr. 8, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL
1932537 (D. Minn. May 1, 2024). If Mr. Renouard returns to custody, “it would be under
a different set of facts than those giving rise to his original petition.” Id. Because this matter
is moot, the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	Mr. Renouard’s petition be DENIED as moot; and
2. 	The action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Date: February 20, 2025 	s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days
after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
CASE 0:25-cv-01569-ECT-JFD Doc. 13 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the
objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the
word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-01569-ECT-JFD Doc. 13 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 4