Finchum v. Fields
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11523
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Finchum v. Fields, Judge McMahon denied Finchum’s custody petition as moot and without prejudice after his release.
David Finchum’s petition was denied as moot after his release from Fishkill Correctional Facility. The ruling ended this custody challenge but did not reach the merits of his claim about unlawful continued detention.
What happened
In Finchum v. Fields, David Finchum filed a petition challenging his continued custody at Fishkill Correctional Facility. He said his maximum sentence had expired and sought release to a shelter, but he was released while the case was pending.
The court ruled that the petition was moot because Finchum was already living in a shelter, so releasing him from Fishkill could no longer provide the requested relief. A moot case no longer presents a live dispute for a federal court to decide.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the petition as moot and without prejudice. The court also said that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Finchum v. Fields · No. 1:19-cv-11523
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
David Finchum, who had previously been incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his custody. He had been convicted in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, of criminal sexual act in the first degree and aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree, and had been adjudicated a level three sex offender.
Finchum alleged that his maximum sentence expired on January 30, 2019, and that he should have been placed on post-release supervision. He claimed that the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision was illegally keeping him in custody because it could not find an approved residence for him. He sought immediate release to a shelter.
While the case was pending, Finchum informed the court that he had been released from Fishkill and was living in a shelter. He later submitted address changes identifying two shelters where he resided.
Court’s Analysis
A federal court may decide a custody challenge under § 2241 when a person is in custody in violation of federal law or the Constitution. But Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding live cases or controversies. The court explained that a case becomes moot when the court can no longer provide relief that would address the claimed injury.
Because Finchum had sought release to a shelter and had already been released from Fishkill and was living in a shelter, the court concluded that his petition was moot. The court therefore did not reach the merits of his claim that his custody had been unlawfully extended.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon denied the petition as moot and without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Finchum a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Finchum had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order stated that Finchum could file a new civil action if he wished to pursue a claim for monetary damages for imprisonment beyond his release date.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.