Mescall v. Mcfarland

Background

Sean F. Mescall, who was representing himself, sued Patrick McFarland, Collette S. Peters, and Magaly Cosme. The opinion identifies McFarland and Peters as employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Cosme as the director of the Bronx Community Reentry Center. Cosme had not appeared in the case and did not join the other defendants’ motion.

Mescall invoked the Administrative Procedure Act and challenged the ankle monitor and related monitoring imposed as conditions of his home confinement. He alleged that the monitor was large and burdensome, interfered with his reintegration into society, and led to multiple daily monitoring calls. He characterized these conditions as violations of procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment and the Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws. He sought an order removing the ankle monitor and stopping what he described as the defendants’ unconstitutional and arbitrary conduct.

Mescall filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The Bureau of Prisons defendants later opposed that motion and filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a pleading states a legally sufficient claim. The opinion notes that Mescall began the case by filing the temporary-restraining-order motion and did not file a separate complaint or other pleading.

Mootness

On August 23, 2023, Mescall was released from home confinement. The Bureau of Prisons defendants then argued that the case was moot. The court explained that a case becomes moot when the problem the plaintiff seeks to remedy has ended and there is no reasonable expectation that it will happen again.

The court determined that Mescall’s requested relief concerned conditions of confinement that no longer applied to him. Because his release meant he was no longer subject to the ankle-monitor conditions, the problem he sought to remedy had ceased. The court therefore dismissed his claims as moot rather than deciding whether the ankle monitor or monitoring calls violated the rights he identified.

Disposition

For these reasons, Judge Rearden denied Mescall’s motion for a temporary restraining order as moot. She also denied the Bureau of Prisons defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. The Clerk was directed to terminate the two motions and close the case. The opinion does not state that either motion or the claims was denied or dismissed with or without prejudice.