Scott v. Fields

Background Timothy Scott pleaded guilty in New York state court to first-degree sexual abuse and received a four-year prison sentence followed by six years of post-release supervision. Under New York’s Sexual Assault Reform Act, certain restrictions apply to where sex offenders may live after release. When a person completing incarceration cannot find housing that complies with those restrictions, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision may require that person to serve post-release supervision at a residential treatment facility until compliant housing is found.

Scott was released in February 2018 but could not find compliant housing, so he remained at Fishkill residential treatment facility. In January 2020, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging that requirement. He sought a declaration that the department had to provide reintegration services, an order preventing use of the housing restrictions to extend the confinement portion of his sentence, and an order requiring the facilities to operate as reintegration facilities. He also asked the court to find New York’s implementation of the law unconstitutional under the ex post facto clause and the Eighth Amendment.

After filing the petition, Scott found a compliant apartment and left the facility on July 2, 2020. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition as moot, or alternatively for failure to exhaust state-law remedies. Scott did not respond to the motion.

Mootness Analysis A case must involve an actual injury that a favorable court decision could address. When a person is released while a habeas proceeding is pending, the petition generally becomes moot unless the person continues to suffer a concrete injury resulting from the earlier confinement or conviction.

The court determined that Scott was not challenging his conviction or the legality of his sentence. He challenged only the way his sentence was being carried out while he was required to remain at Fishkill. Because Scott had found compliant housing and had been released from the facility, he had already received the relief sought for that issue. The court therefore found no continuing injury to remedy.

The court also considered the exception for claims capable of repetition yet evading review. That exception requires both that the challenged action is too short to be fully reviewed before it ends and that the same person can reasonably be expected to face the same action again. The court found neither requirement satisfied. Scott was unlikely to return to an RTF because doing so would require him to violate his release conditions and then again fail to find compliant housing. In addition, Scott had spent almost two years at the facility before filing the case, so a future dispute would not necessarily evade review.

Ruling The court held that Scott’s petition was moot and that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide the case. It concluded that the exception for claims capable of repetition yet evading review did not apply. The court stated that it therefore did not need to decide whether Scott had failed to exhaust state-law remedies.

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss.