Ronnie Godoy v. F. Lara

Case: 18-40240 Document: 00514957883 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 18-40240 FILED Summary Calendar May 15, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk RONNIE ARTURO GODOY,

Petitioner-Appellant v. F. LARA, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16-CV-493

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * As a result of prison officials finding that he failed a drug test while on home confinement release, Ronnie Arturo Godoy, federal prisoner # 59771-008, was reincarcerated and lost a one-year credit he had received for completing an in-custody drug treatment program. Godoy filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the result of his disciplinary hearing and a subsequent rehearing. The district court determined that summary judgment for the respondent was

• • Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 18-40240 Document: 00514957883 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2019

No. 18-40240

appropriate given that Godoy failed to exhaust his claims through the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) administrative remedy program, notwithstanding Godoy’s argument that an exception to the exhaustion requirement applied. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition. Godoy appeals. He also moves to file an out- of-time reply brief. “This [c]ourt must examine the basis of its jurisdiction,” including whether Godoy’s appeal is moot. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987); see United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Godoy’s § 2241 petition challenges the basis for his reincarceration and seeks, as a remedy, his release from custody and the reinstatement of his sentence credit. The BOP website shows that Godoy was released from custody during the pendency of this appeal. See United States v. Booker, 645 F.3d 328, 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Shokeh v. Thompson, 375 F.3d 351, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2004). Thus, even if he prevails on the merits, this court is unable to grant Godoy any effective relief. See Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d at 340. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as moot, and we DENY the motion for leave to file an out-of-time reply brief. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.