UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 18, 2009
JOSE MARTIN VEGA, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles P. Sifton (electronically signed) United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SIFTON, Senior Judge.
After a fourteen week jury trial in 1995, petitioner pro se Jose Martin Vega ("Vega") was convicted on fifteen counts of racketeering and drug activity.*fn1 Thereafter, petitioner was sentenced to four concurrent life sentences plus an additional ninety years in prison. Presently before the Court is petitioner's application dated March 6, 2006 for a "Court Order Directing Petitioner's Place of Incarceration to Furnish Him with His Legal and Religious Property."
Plaintiff states that on February 1, 2006, following a disciplinary incident, his legal and religious materials were taken from him by Bureau of Prisons personnel. Petitioner states that while in ambulatory restraints, petitioner asked a prison official for his legal and religious materials, and the official responded, "You cannot have anything (meaning property) while in restraints." Vega Memorandum in Support of Motion, p. 2. On February 18, 2006, petitioner states that he was released from restraints. Between February 20, 2006 and March 3, 2006, he states that he requested his legal and religious materials and they were not returned to him. As of the date of petitioner's application, petitioner states that his material had not been returned. Id. at 3.
On April 25, 2006, after receiving petitioner's application to have his property returned to him, I issued an Order to Show Cause directing the government to explain why petitioner's request should not be granted. By letter dated July 6, 2006, the government stated that petitioner's property had recently been returned to him.*fn2 On July 13, 2006, I issued another Order to Show Cause, directing the petitioner to show cause on or before August 24, 2006, as to why his application should not be dismissed as moot for the reasons stated in the government's July 6 letter. Petitioner did not respond August 24, 2006, the date specified in the order. By letter dated January 3, 2007, the government again requested that petitioner's application be dismissed as moot.*fn3
Accordingly, since petitioner does not contend that he continues to be deprived of religious properties which were the subject of these proceedings, or dispute the government's statement that he now has possession of his legal property, petitioner's application is dismissed as moot.