Balfour v. Lillard

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EMMETT BALFOUR, )
Petitioner,
v.
THOMAS LILLARD,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-cv-706-RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:1
This matter comes before the court on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot,
or in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time to Respond to the Petition. Doc. 15. Petitioner
Emmett Balfour did not respond. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED, and
this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Discussion
At the time Balfour filed the petition, on April 24, 2025, he was incarcerated at Federal
Correctional Institution in Greenville (FCI Greenville). He challenged the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) “staff’s decision not to restore the 151 days he received for Second Chance Act Placement
to a halfway house.” Doc. 1, p. 2. He alleged he was originally projected for 151 Residential
Reentry Center (RRC) days, which would have resulted in his RRC placement in late May 2025,
but his placement date was changed to September 2025. Id. at 6.
1 This case was assigned to the undersigned for final disposition upon the parties’ full consent
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Doc. 11.
Case 3:25-cv-00706-RJD Document 17 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
Respondent represents in the motion that, following the filing of the petition, the BOP
determined bedspace was available to provide Balfour his originally projected RRC placement,
resulting in Balfour’s anticipated placement in an RRC on May 27, 2025. Doc. 15, p. 1.
Respondent avers that on May 27, 2025, Petitioner was transferred from FCI Greenville to an RRC
within the Chicago Residential Reentry Management Office. Id. at 1-2; Doc. 15-1, ¶ 3. Balfour
did not respond to the motion or otherwise dispute the Respondent’s representations.
“The inability to review moot cases stems from the requirement of Article III of the
Constitution which limits the exercise of judicial power to live cases or controversies.” A.M. v.
Butler, 360 F.3d 787, 790 (7th Cir. 2004). Dismissal is proper when the Court “cannot give the
petitioner any effective relief.” Id. Further, the traditional purpose of a habeas case is to seek
“immediate or more speedy release” from custody. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973). Here, on May 27, 2025, Balfour was transferred from FCI Greenville to an RRC,
receiving the relief he had requested. Because Balfour received the relief sought in the petition
and does not appear to seek any additional relief, the habeas petition is moot.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot, or in the
Alternative, for an Extension of Time to Respond to the Petition (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. This
action is DISMISSED without prejudice as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 4, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-00706-RJD Document 17 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00706-RJD Document 17 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>