Lighty v. Christensen

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________________________________
Richard Lighty,
Plaintiff,
v. 9:24-CV-797
(LEK/MJK)
David Christensen,
Warden
Respondent.
_____________________________________________________________________
Richard Lighty, Pro Se
Mitchell J. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge
To the Honorable Lawrence E. Kahn, Senior U.S. District Judge:
ORDER & REPORT- RECOMMENDATION
I. BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2024 Lighty began this action by filing a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. (Petition, Dkt. 1). In his petition, Lighty argued
that the District Court should correct his protected release date and
apply 667 days of good time credit, allowing his immediate release from
incarceration. (Id. at pg. 2). On January 17, 2025, President Joseph R.
Biden commuted Lighty’s sentence. (Christensen Status Ltr. Exh. A,
Dkt. 24-1). Five months later, the United States moved to dismiss
Lighty’s Petition as moot. (Dkt. 24).
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 10

2
II. DISCUSSION
“A basic tenet of federal jurisdiction is that when a court is
presented with issues that ‘are no longer live or when the parties ‘lack a
cognizable interest in the outcome, the case is moot and therefore
outside the court's jurisdictional authority.” Carter v. Warden, FPC
Danbury, No. 3:24-CV-1554, 2025 WL 1786096, at *1 (D. Conn. June 27,
2025) (cleaned up). “In the context of habeas corpus petitions, the
petition becomes moot when the petitioner is no longer ‘in custody,’
unless they can identify continuing collateral legal consequences from
the conviction or sentence.” Id.
Lighty’s habeas petition is moot. On January 17, 2025, President
Biden commuted Lighty’s sentence. (Christensen Ltr. Mot. Exh. A, Dkt.
24-1). As a result, Lighty is no longer incarcerated. (Christensen Ltr.
Mot., Dkt. 24, at pg. 1). Adding to this, Lighty’s habeas petition does not
challenge his conviction or sentence—it seeks to apply good time credit
to his sentence. (Petition, Dkt. 1, at pg. 2). In combination, those two
facts moot Lighty’s petition. See, e.g., Minier v. Perdue, No. 12-CV-0637
(DNH/RFT), 2014 WL 2938341, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding the
petitioner’s habeas petition moot where the “[p]etitioner's sentence has
expired, he has been released from prison, and his Petition fails to
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 10

3
allege any collateral consequences related to his pre-release disciplinary
conviction.”). Christensen agrees. (Christensen Ltr. Mot., Dkt. 24, at pg.
1). As a result, this Court recommends the District Court dismiss
Lighty’s habeas petition as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is
RECOMMENDED, that the petition be DISMISSED as moot,
and it is further;
RECOMMENDED, that a certificate of appealability be
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order
and Report-Recommendation on Plaintiff by regular mail.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(c), the parties
have 14 days within which to file written objections to the foregoing
report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN 14 DAYS
WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See Roldan v. Racette,
1 The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions cited
herein in accordance with Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per
curiam).
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 10

4
984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services, 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e), 72.
Dated: December 23, 2025
__________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 10

Carter v. Warden, FPC Danbury, Slip Copy (2025)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
2025 WL 1786096
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Connecticut.
Detria CARTER, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN, FPC DANBURY, Defendant.
No. 3:24-cv-1554 (VAB)
|
Signed June 27, 2025
Attorneys and Law Firms
Detria Carter, Danbury, CT, Pro Se.
John W. Larson, DOJ-United States Attorney's Office, Hartford, CT, for Defendant.
ORDER
Victor A. Bolden, United States District Judge
*1 Detria Carter (“Petitioner”) is an individual who, at the time of filing, was an inmate at a satellite camp of FCI Danbury
located in Danbury, Connecticut.
On September 26, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Warden of FPC
Danbury (“Respondent”), challenging the calculation of her First Step Act time credits and requesting release or transfer to a
halfway house. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1 (Sept. 26, 2024) (“Petition”).
Respondent has filed a response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, arguing for dismissal of this action. Response, ECF No.
9 (Apr. 17, 2025) (“Response”).
While the petition for writ of habeas corpus was pending, Ms. Carter was granted executive clemency and her sentence was
commuted to expire on May 16, 2025. Response at 2; see also Executive Grant of Clemency at 17–19, ECF No. 757, No. 5:17-
cr-0113 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 24, 2025) (“Grant of Clemency”).
For the reasons below, this Petition is DISMISSED as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2024, Ms. Carter filed a habeas petition under § 2241. Petition. At the time of filing, Ms. Carter had been
serving a 151-month sentence at a satellite camp of FCI Danbury, under a criminal judgment from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Response at 1.
On October 10, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the relief requested by Ms. Carter should not be
granted. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 6 (Oct. 10, 2024).
On January 17, 2025, President Joe Biden issued an executive grant of clemency, commuting Ms. Carter's sentence to expire
on May 16, 2025, and “leav[ing] intact and in effect the term of supervised release.” Grant of Clemency at 17.
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 10

Carter v. Warden, FPC Danbury, Slip Copy (2025)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
On April 17, 2025, Respondent filed a response to the Court's Order to Show Cause arguing that “(1) the petitioner's sentence
credits under the First Step Act (the ‘FSA’) are being properly calculated and may not yet be applied; and (2) the BOP already
has placed the petitioner in community confinement under the Second Chance Act (the ‘SCA’), so that aspect of the relief
requested is moot.” Response at 1.
II. DISCUSSION
A writ of habeas corpus “is directed to, and served upon, not the person confined, but his jailer.... [T]he court releases [the
petitioner] by compelling the oppressor to release his constraint.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S.
484, 495 (1973). “As a result, ‘[t]he question whether [a district court] has jurisdiction over [a] habeas petition breaks down
into two related subquestions.’ First, who is the proper respondent to that petition? And second, does [the district court] have
jurisdiction over him or her?” Dailey v. Pullen, No. 3:22-CV-1121 (SRU), 2023 WL 3456696, at *2 (D. Conn. May 15, 2023)
(quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004)).
“A basic tenet of federal jurisdiction is that when a court is presented with issues that ‘are no longer “live’ ” or when the parties
‘lack a cognizable interest in the outcome,’ the case is moot and therefore outside the court's jurisdictional authority.” R.C.
Bigelow Inc. v. Unilever N.V., 867 F.2d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). In
the context of habeas corpus petitions, the petition becomes moot when the petitioner is no longer “in custody,” unless they
can identify continuing collateral legal consequences from the conviction or sentence. See United States v. Bradford, 194 F.2d
197, 200 (2d Cir. 1952) (“Not being in custody[, the Petitioner] Bradford was in no position to review the conviction by habeas
corpus (that was indeed why we held that the question was moot)”); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968) (holding
that a petition for habeas corpus is not moot where petitioner challenged the legitimacy of his conviction, and “[i]n consequence
of his conviction, ... he cannot vote ... he cannot serve as a juror, [among other consequences]”).
*2 Here, Ms. Carter specifically sought “immediate release or immediate placement in Home Confinement or Half Way
House.” Petition at 1. She did not challenge the validity of her conviction, nor identify any collateral legal consequences that
create a live case or controversy. Cf. United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 932 (2011) (“When the defendant challenges
his underlying conviction, this Court's cases have long presumed the existence of collateral consequences. But when a defendant
challenges only an expired sentence, no such presumption applies, and the defendant must bear the burden of identifying some
ongoing ‘collateral consequence’ that is ‘traceable’ to the challenged portion of the sentence and ‘likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision.’ ” (internal citations omitted) (cleaned up)).
Thus, her release following the grant of the executive clemency and commutation of her sentence has rendered her petition
moot. See, e.g., Denis v. DHS/ICE of Buffalo, New York, 634 F. Supp. 2d 338, 341 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Because the only relief
sought by Denis, and obtainable from this Court, was release from DHS custody, Denis’ habeas petition became moot upon
his release under an order of supervision, which terminated his custodial detention.”); United States v. Orange, No. 24-12449,
2025 WL 1513175, at * 1 (11th Cir. May 28, 2025) (“Orange did not challenge his conviction or term of supervised release
in his motion for sentence reduction. He similarly did not challenge his conviction or supervised release in his appellate brief.
Nor did he identify an ongoing collateral consequence traceable to his term of imprisonment in response to the jurisdictional
question. As a result, this appeal [of denial of habeas relief] relates only to a term of imprisonment from which Orange has
been released, meaning it is moot.”).
Accordingly, the petition for habeas corpus will be dismissed as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 10

Carter v. Warden, FPC Danbury, Slip Copy (2025)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 27th day of June, 2025.
All Citations
Slip Copy, 2025 WL 1786096
End of Document © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 7 of 10

Minier v. Perdue, Not Reported in F.Supp.3d (2014)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
2014 WL 2938341
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,
N.D. New York.
Luis MINIER, Petitioner,
v.
Russell PERDUE, Warden, Respondent.
No. 9:12–CV–0637 (DNH/RFT).
|
Signed June 27, 2014.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Luis Minier, Ray Brook, NY, 1 pro se.
Hon. Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Charles E. Roberts, Esq., Ass't United
States Attorney, of Counsel, Syracuse, NY, for Respondent.
DECISION and ORDER
DAVID N. HURD, District Judge.
*1 Pro se petitioner Luis Minier brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 28,
2014, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report–Recommendation that the petition
be denied and that no certificate of appealability be issued. No objections to the Report–Recommendation were filed.
Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report–Recommendation
is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED and DISMISSED;
2. A Certificate of Appealability will not be issued.
The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon petitioner in accordance with the Local Rules and close
the file.
REPORT–RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
RANDOLPH F. TREECE, United States Magistrate Judge.
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 8 of 10

Minier v. Perdue, Not Reported in F.Supp.3d (2014)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
Pro se Petitioner Louis Minier brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the
constitutionality of a prison disciplinary hearing that resulted in the loss of his non-vested good time credits. Dkt. No. 1, Pet.
For the reasons that follow, we recommend that it be DENIED and no certificate of appealability be issued.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on March 10, 2012, claiming that his non-vested good time credits were stripped in violation
of his due process and equal protection rights because he was improperly charged under a higher level offense code than he
should have been after a cell phone, radio, and homemade charging device were found in his cell. See generally Pet. On August
15, 2012, Respondent filed his opposition to the Petition, noting, inter alia, that Petitioner's sentence was due to expire on
October 26, 2012. Dkt. No. 5, Resp't's Mem. of Law, at p. 1. Subsequently, on October 26, 2012, Petitioner was released from
federal custody. Dkt. No. 7, Lt., dated Jan. 30, 2014, at Ex. 1, Printout of Federal Prison Locator Service Website.
II. DISCUSSION
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution limits the subject matter of the federal courts to those cases which present
a “case or controversy.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 6 (1998); Greif v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP,
258 F.Supp.2d 157 (E.D.N.Y.2003). “A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (internal quotations and citations
omitted); Lavin v. United States, 299 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir.2002). Habeas corpus review is available only to persons in custody
in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The custody requirement has been held
to include situations in which a petitioner's sentence has fully expired, but he continues to be subject to collateral consequences
of the conviction. Carafas v. LaVallee, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559–60 (1968). Howqever, courts within this ircuit have held that,
unlike a challenge to an underlying criminal conviction, which is presumed to have collateral consequences, “a challenge to
a disciplinary hearing which results in loss of good time does not presume collateral consequences and petitioner is therefore
required to demonstrate a concrete injury in fact in order to avoid dismissal for failure to satisfy Article III's ‘case or controversy’
requirement.” Butti v. Fischer, 385 F.Supp.2d 183, 186 (W.D.N.Y.2005); see also Sullivan v. Graham, 2008 WL 2074047, at
*1 (N.D.N.Y. May 14, 2008) (Hurd, J.) (citing Butti v. Fischer, for the proposition that “collateral consequences sufficient to
satisfy the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution are not presumed where the petition
challenges only the loss of good time credits”).
*2 In the instant case, Petitioner's sentence has expired, he has been released from prison, and his Petition fails to allege any
collateral consequences related to his pre-release disciplinary conviction. Accordingly, Petitioner's claims are moot, and we
recommend that the Petition be DENIED and that no certificate of appealability be issued.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) be DENIED; and it is further
RECOMMENDED, that because the Court finds Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability should be issued with respect to any of Petitioner's
claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (“A certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”); see also Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d
Cir.2000), cert. denied 531 U.S. 873 (2000); and it is further
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 9 of 10

Minier v. Perdue, Not Reported in F.Supp.3d (2014)
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Report–Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file written objections to the foregoing
report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.1993) (citing
Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs ., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir.1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); FED. R. CIV. P.
72 & 6(a).
Date: May 28, 2014.
All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 2938341
Footnotes
1 This is petitioner's last known address. He has not resided at Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution for more than
one year; however, he has failed to apprise the Court of his current address. See Dkt. No. 7, Lt., dated Jan. 30, 2014. The
Report–Recommendation which is the subject of this Decision and Order was sent to him at this address and returned
as undeliverable on June 9, 2014. See Dkt. No. 9.
Petitioner has not resided at Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution for more than one year; however, he has failed
to apprise the Court of his current address. See Dkt. No. 7, Lt., dated Jan. 30, 2014.
End of Document © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 26 Filed 12/23/25 Page 10 of 10