Howard v. Petrucci
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-06645
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Howard v. Petrucci, Judge Carter ordered Mark Howard to explain why his email-access petition should not be dismissed as moot after his prison transfer.
Mark Howard, whose petition could be dismissed as moot after his transfer from FCI Otisville; James Petrucci, who was ordered to serve the court’s order and could respond.
What happened
In Howard v. Petrucci, Mark Howard challenged restrictions on his access to the Bureau of Prisons’ TRULINCS email system while detained at FCI Otisville. He sought an order requiring James Petrucci, identified as Otisville’s acting warden, to restore that access during his sentence.
The court noted that prison records showed Howard had been transferred from Otisville to Fairton FCI. The court explained that a transfer from a prison facility generally makes a request for an order directed at the original facility no longer live.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not dismiss the case at this stage. Instead, he ordered Howard to respond in writing by February 17, 2021, explaining why the case should not be dismissed as moot, and allowed Petrucci to respond by the same date.
The detailed version
- Howard v. Petrucci · No. 1:19-cv-06645
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 29, 2020
Background
Mark Howard filed a petition challenging the conditions of his detention at FCI Otisville. He alleged that he was improperly restricted from using the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ TRULINCS email system while detained there. He sought injunctive relief—an order requiring James Petrucci, identified as the acting warden of FCI Otisville, to restore Howard’s email access during his sentence.
Issue Identified by the Court
The court stated that the Bureau of Prisons’ inmate records showed Howard had been transferred from FCI Otisville to Fairton FCI after filing the petition. The court cited Second Circuit decisions stating that a transfer from a prison facility moots a request for injunctive relief against the transferring facility. A moot case is one in which the court can no longer provide effective relief because the dispute is no longer live.
Order
The court did not enter a dismissal. It ordered Howard to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed as moot in light of his transfer. Howard’s written response was due February 17, 2021, and Petrucci could also respond by that date. Petrucci was ordered to serve the order on Howard and file proof of service by January 8, 2021.
Disposition
This opinion is an order to show cause, not a final ruling dismissing the petition. The court’s action was based on the possible mootness of the requested injunctive relief and did not decide whether Howard was entitled to access to the email system.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.