FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

AUG 18 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN CHARLES GILLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,
vs.

GLYNN BOOHER, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.	

No. 00-6106
(	D.C. No. 99-CV-1567-R)
(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**

	Petitioner-Appellant John Gille, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the denial of his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2241.  Mr. Gille claims that the Oklahoma Department of Corrections denied his liberty interest in good time credits, when it improperly demoted him to a level at which he could earn fewer credits.  The magistrate judge recommended dismissal on the merits, and the district court adopted the recommendation and denied the petition.   Mr. Gille was released from custody several days after the district court order.  We deny a certificate of appealability because the petition is moot.
	“A 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).  This requirement means that the plaintiff must have suffered an actual injury which can “‘be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citation omitted).  Mr. Gille complains that the ODOC’s actions improperly lengthened his term of incarceration.  However, because he has now been released, his incarceration “cannot be undone.”  Id. at 7-8.  This habeas petition can only be maintained if Mr. Gille is subject to continuing collateral consequences attributable to the ODOC’s failure to keep him at a higher earned credit level.  Id.  We are not aware of, and Mr. Gille has failed to allege, any continuing consequences of the ODOC’s action. 
	Mr. Gille recognizes that a writ of habeas cannot be issued because he is no longer in custody.  Aplt. Br. at 22.  His attempt to raise the rights of currently confined inmates is unavailing because “he is without standing to sue for the benefit of others.”  Birch v. Quinlan, No. 93-3220, 1993 WL 496918, at **1 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 1993) (dismissing as moot habeas petition in which released inmate attempted to protect other prisoners from alleged wrongs).  Mr. Gille also claims that he “deserves to have his denial of statutory earned credits declared illegal, and be awarded damages to the degree this court is able to do so, including costs of this action.”  Aplt. Br. at 22.  We can not render what amounts to an advisory opinion regarding the legality of the ODOC’s actions.  Moreover, monetary damages are not recoverable in a habeas action.  Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability.  See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000).  
	DISMISSED.

						Entered for the Court

						Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
						Circuit Judge