United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H. WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is  Petitioner Brandon Fields' May 19, 2017
petition for federal habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254, and  Respondent Pelicia Hall's
September 11, 2017 motion to dismiss the petition. Fields
filed no response to the motion. Having reviewed and
considered the pleadings, records on file, and relevant legal
authority, the undersigned recommends that federal habeas
relief be denied and the petition, dismissed.
and Procedural History
December 3, 2014, Brandon Fields waived indictment and
entered a petition to plead guilty in the Circuit Court of
Lauderdale County, Mississippi to a charge of possession of a
firearm by a felon. That court accepted Fields' plea and
sentenced him to ten years in custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (MDOC), five years to serve, and
five years suspended with five years post-release
supervision. The sentencing court additionally ordered that
Fields pay $1430.50 in fines, fees and court costs, and that
he “participate in the Restitution Center Program as a
condition of any early release.” [15-1]
MDOC released Fields on parole in April 2016; he was arrested
for violating parole on March 20, 2017. [1, p. 12] A
revocation hearing on May 10, 2017 concluded with his being
reinstated to parole. [15-2], [15-3] Fields filed the present
habeas petition May 19, 2017, claiming that (1) the
MDOC's failure to place him in a restitution center
violated his plea agreement and due process rights and led to
the parole violation for his failure to pay court ordered
fines; (2) he was unlawfully returned from parole on a
wrongfully-issued felony fugitive warrant while he was
working outside Mississippi; and (3) that his sentence has
expired and he should receive credit against his Mississippi
sentence for time spent incarcerated in Louisiana following
August 17, 2017, Fields was placed on earned release
supervision and remanded to the Pascagoula Restitution
Center. [15-2], [15-3], [15-4] His last filing in this case
was an August 24, 2017 change of address stating his new
address was the Pascagoula Restitution Center.  As of
September 12, 2017, the MDOC web site indicated Fields was at
the Hinds County Restitution Center, although Fields never
filed a change of address to that facility. On September 15,
2017, Respondent served Fields with a second copy of the
Motion to Dismiss at the Hinds County Restitution Center.
 At the present time, the MDOC web site does not show
Fields as an inmate in any MDOC facility, or as a parolee.
urges the petition should be dismissed because Fields failed
to exhaust state court remedies prior to filing this action,
he has failed to state a constitutional claim, and the issues
presented are now moot.
submits that Fields' first ground for relief regarding
the MDOC's failure to place him in a restitution center
presents no viable claim for federal habeas relief.
“[A] prisoner has no constitutional right to be housed
in a particular facility.” Barber v.
Quarterman, 437 F. App'x 302, 304 (5th Cir. 2011);
Fields v. Fisher, 2016 WL 5415905, at *2 (S.D.Miss.
2016). The statutory authority to determine where to place
convicted offenders committed to the MDOC rests with the
MDOC, and a sentencing Court's commitment of an offender
is to the MDOC, not to a particular facility. Miss. Code Ann.
§ 47-5-110. The undersigned agrees with Respondent that
Fields' ground one fails to state a constitutional claim.
Indeed, this Court has previously so held in Fields'
earlier habeas action, Fields v. Fisher, 2016 WL
5415905, at *2 (S.D.Miss. 2016), Civil Action No.
3:16cv97-DPJ-JCG, dismissed with prejudice on September 27,
2016, for failure to exhaust and failure to state a claim.
Even were it otherwise, this issue would be moot in light of
the fact that since filing the present petition, Fields has
been placed on earned-release supervision, placed in two
restitution centers, and apparently discharged from custody
by the MDOC.
addition, Respondent asserts that Fields “acknowledges
in his habeas petition” that the grounds he states for
relief have neither been presented to nor ruled upon by the
Mississippi Supreme Court,  thus they are subject to
dismissal for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
“A fundamental prerequisite to federal habeas relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exhaustion of all claims
in state court ... prior to requesting federal collateral
relief. See, Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509
(1982).” Sterling v. Scott, 57 F.3d 451, 453
(5th Cir. 1995); Fisher v. Texas, 169 F.3d 295, 302
(5th Cir. 1999); Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384,
387 (5th Cir. 1998). By statute:
(b)(1) An application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of
a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be granted unless it appears that-
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State; or
(B)(i) there is either an absence of available State
corrective process; or
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective
to protect the ...