USCA4 Appeal: 24-6439 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6371

BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TODD E. ISHEE, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 24-6439

BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TODD E. ISHEE, Secretary of North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:22-cv-00169-MR)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6439 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Michael Pickens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6439 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

While incarcerated by the State of North Carolina, Brandon Michael Pickens filed

a

petition requesting dismissal of his prison disciplinary conviction,

which resulted in the loss of 30 days of good-time credit. The district court granted

Respondent summary judgment and dismissed the petition, and Pickens appealed, which

is the subject of No. 24-6371. Pickens also moved the court for reconsideration, which the

court denied. Pickens’ separate appeal of that order is the subject of No. 24-6439. ∗ During

the pendency of these appeals, Pickens was released from custody, having completed his

term of imprisonment. We conclude that Pickens’ release renders these consolidated

appeals moot and dismiss the appeals accordingly.

“The doctrine of mootness constitutes a part of the constitutional limits of federal

court jurisdiction, which extends only to actual cases or controversies.” Fleet Feet, Inc. v.

NIKE, Inc.,

, 463 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Because

mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither party has raised it.”

United States v. Ketter,

(4th Cir. 2018). “A case becomes moot, and thus

deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction, when the issues presented are no

longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Catawba

Riverkeeper Found. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp.,

(4th Cir. 2016) (internal

quotation marks omitted). “If an event occurs during the pendency of an appeal that makes

∗ These appeals were consolidated for consideration in this court.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6439 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

it impossible for a court to grant effective relief to a prevailing party, then the appeal must

be dismissed as moot.” Fleet Feet, Inc., 986 F.3d at 463 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that Pickens’ request for remand for consideration of his § 2254

petition on the merits—and dismissal of his disciplinary conviction—is moot because

Pickens has been released from prison. To the extent that Pickens ultimately seeks

restoration of his good-time credit, that relief is also moot because any time Pickens

allegedly overserved cannot be applied to shorten his parole term. See United States v.

Jackson,

, 498 (4th Cir. 2020). Finally, we conclude that any collateral

consequence of the prison disciplinary conviction remaining on Pickens’ record is too

speculative to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.

Because Pickens’ release means that the district court can no longer grant any

effective relief, we dismiss these consolidated appeals as moot. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4