Cardenas-Leal v. Lucero et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/10/17. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Daniel Alejandro Cardenas-Leal, Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-17-00914-PHX-ROS Enrique Lucero, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 On September 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 17 denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner did not file objections. The R&R will be 18 adopted in full, subject to the following regarding the nature of the dismissal. 19 The R&R concludes the petition should be dismissed based on mootness. Courts 20 disagree on whether the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on 21 mootness should be with or without prejudice. In general, the Ninth Circuit views “a 22 dismissal for mootness [as] a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.” Tur v. YouTube, Inc., 23 562 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 2009). And “[d]ismissals for lack of subject-matter 24 jurisdiction . . . must be without prejudice, because a lack of jurisdiction deprives the 25 dismissing court of any power to adjudicate the merits of the case.” Hampton v. Pac. Inv. 26 Mgmt. Co. LLC, 869 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 2017). Some district courts, however, have 27 concluded the particular context of a moot habeas petition means a dismissal with 28 prejudice is appropriate. See, e.g, Noyola v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. SACV 15- 1 00544-JGB KK, 2015 WL 3644006, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2015); Hearn v. Sanders, 2 No. CV 09-2220-PA (AGR), 2009 WL 3073128, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2009). Those 3 courts reason a moot habeas petition involves conduct that cannot possibly recur and, 4 therefore, a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. Id. 5 In this case, the R&R reasoned the petition should be dismissed with prejudice and 6 Petitioner did not file any objections. There is a reasonable basis for concluding a 7 dismissal with prejudice is appropriate and, absent objections, there is no need to wade 8 into the issue in more detail. Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 9 Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED IN 11 FULL and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH 12 PREJUDICE. 13 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. Dated this 10th day of October, 2017. 16 17 18 Honorable Roslyn O. Silver Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?