United States District Court, D. Maryland
W. Grimm United States District Judge
February 21, 2018, Petitioner Kevin Goode-Bey filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his judgment
of conviction entered on July 19, 2007 by the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City in Case No. 107170007. ECF No. 1. In his
Amended Petition, he alleged that his conviction was tainted
by evidence planted on him by Detective Daniel T. Hersl who
was later convicted in February 2018 for racketeering in
connection with his official duties as a member of the
Baltimore City Police Department's Gun Trace Task Force.
Am. Pet. 5-7, ECF No. 3.
answered the Petition, arguing that it was untimely and/or
unexhausted, ECF No. 7, and Goode-Bey filed a reply, arguing
that it should be accepted out of time based on the
extraordinary circumstances of his case and his prompt action
following Hersl's conviction, ECF No. 13. Petitioner also
filed a Motion to Stay, asserting that the "the state is
trying to fix [his] problems in the lower courts with post
convictions that were just filed on [his] behalf." ECF
No. 11. I directed Respondents to respond to Petitioner's
request to stay. ECF No. 12.
filed a "Court Ordered Response to Motion to Stay
Proceedings and Court Ordered Update Re: State Postconviction
Proceedings and Motion to Dismiss." ECF No. 15. The
Clerk's Office notified Petitioner of his right to file a
response, ECF No. 16, but he has filed nothing further. After
reviewing these papers, I find no need for an evidentiary
hearing. See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; see
also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Because
Goode-Bey's state court conviction and sentences have
been vacated and the charges were entered nolle prosequi,
rendering his habeas petition moot, the Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED and the Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED.
March 1, 2019, Petitioner's judgment of conviction,
probation violation, and sentences in Case No. 107170007 were
vacated and the charges were entered nolle prosequi. State
Ct. Docket Entries 1, 8, ECF No. 15-1. See State v.
Goode, Case No. 107170007 (Cir. Ct. Bait. City)
(last visited May 29, 2019). Under Maryland law, the entry of
nolle prosequi after jeopardy has attached operates as an
acquittal and a bar to any re-prosecution. State v.
Simms, 175 A.3d 681, 686 (Md. 2017).
habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a
case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the
Constitution." Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690,
691 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523
U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). "This case-or-controversy requirement
subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,
trial and appellate." Lewis v. Cont'l Bank
Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). The parties must
continue to have a "personal stake in the outcome"
of the lawsuit. Id. at 478 (quoting Los Angeles
v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)). "This means
that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff 'must have
suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable
to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.'" Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7
(quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).
Petitioner has received all of the relief he could receive
through his Petition and he does not face any collateral
consequences from the State charges complained of, the matter
is now moot. See Piskanin v. Krysevig, 349 Fed.Appx.
683, 685 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding Petitioner could not
demonstrate "any concrete and continuing injury or
collateral consequence that remain[ed] following the entry of
nolle prosequi in the [state criminal] proceedings" and
Petitioner's claim that the charges could be reinstated
in the future was too speculative); Fiocconi v. Att'y
Gen. of the U.S., 339 F.Supp. 1242, 1245 n.4 (S.D.N.Y.
1972) (holding that after the government filed a nolle
prosequi, the habeas petition challenging that indictment was
district court dismisses a habeas petition, a certificate of
appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a district
court dismisses a habeas petition solely on procedural
grounds, a petitioner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating "(1) that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right and (2) that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling." Rouse v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see Buck v. Davis, 137
S.Ct. 759, 773 (2017). Because Petitioner fails to satisfy
this standard, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
separate Order follows
 Denial of a certificate of
appealability in the district court does not preclude
Petitioner from requesting a certificate of appealability