
USCA1 Opinion

	




        December 4, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                            ____________________        No. 95-1330                                     CHARLES SIMON,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Charles Simon on brief pro se.            _____________            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Emily R. Schulman,            ________________                                _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  By way of this habeas corpus petition under                 __________            28 U.S.C.     2241, petitioner  Charles  Simon sought  to  be            awarded 120  days of "meritorious  good time credit"  that he            alleged had  been unlawfully  withheld from him.   Petitioner            has since been released from prison.   As there is no  longer            any  available relief  that  can be  judicially awarded,  his            petition  is  moot.   See, e.g.,  Fendler  v. U.S.  Bureau of                                  ___  ____   _______     _______________            Prisons,  846  F.2d  550,  555  (9th  Cir. 1988);  Bailey  v.            _______                                            ______            Southerland, 821  F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).            ___________            We  accordingly  vacate  the  district  court's  judgment and            remand with directions to dismiss the action on the ground of            mootness.  See, e.g., United  States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S.                       ___  ____  ______________    ___________            36,  39-40 (1950); Motta v. District Director of INS, 61 F.3d                               _____    ________________________            117, 118-19 (1st Cir. 1995).                 Vacated  and  remanded with  directions  to  dismiss the                 ________________________________________________________            action as moot.            _______________                                         -2-
