ALFORD v. PLUMERI, No. 1:2023cv01821 - Document 4 (D.N.J. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/17/2023. (alb, n.m.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ALFORD v. PLUMERI Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE CHARLES ALFORD, Petitioner v. SAMUEL J. PLUMERI, Respondent ______________________________ : : : : : : : : CIV. NO. 23-1821 (RMB) MEMORANDUM OPINION IT APPEARING THAT: 1. On or about March 20, 2023, Petitioner Charles Alford, a prisoner confined in South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention based on an allegedly unlawful parole warrant. (Pet., Docket No. 1.) Petitioner acknowledged he had not exhausted state court challenges to his parole warrant. (Id. ¶ 7b.) See Stokes v. New Jersey Dep't of Corr., No. CV 20-2906 (NLH), 2021 WL 1904707, at *3 (D.N.J. May 12, 2021) (“Prisoners in New Jersey may appeal the revocation of parole to the New Jersey Appellate Division. N.J. Ct. R. 2:2-3(a)(2)”); 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (person in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must exhaust available remedies in state courts prior to filing federal habeas petition). 2. On November 8, 2023, Petitioner submitted a letter to this Court, requesting to withdraw his habeas petition because he had been released from prison on November 3, 2023. 3. “If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able Dockets.Justia.com to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698–99 (3d Cir. 1996). 4. The petition no longer presents a live case or controversy. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this matter as moot. An accompanying Order follows. DATE: November 17, 2023 s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
