Carter v. Duncan

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING IN WHOLE 20 Report and Recommendations, Denying as Moot 19 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Robert S Carter, ; Denied as Moot re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) ; Clerk to enter Judgment and dismiss case. Signed by Judge A Wallace Tashima on 6/22/11. (SMBE)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 ROBERT CARTER, 10 Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 DAVID DUNCAN, 13 Respondent. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 09-590-TUC-AWT (CRP) ORDER 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner Robert Carter, presently serving a three-year term of supervised 19 release after his incarceration for tax and mail fraud, filed the Petition on October 14, 2009 20 while in custody at the Federal Correctional Institution in Safford, Arizona (Doc. 1). 21 Respondent answered the Petition on November 25, 2009 (Doc. 8). On July 13, 2010, 22 Petitioner was released from incarceration and began his term of supervised release. On 23 September 30, 2010, the Court ordered additional briefing on the issue of whether the 24 Petition became moot when Petitioner was released from incarceration (Doc. 14), and the 25 parties subsequently filed their supplemental briefing (Docs. 15, 16). 26 On April 6, 2011, after a thorough and well-documented analysis, Magistrate Judge 27 Pyle issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to this Court (Doc. 20). Magistrate 28 Judge Pyle recommends that the Habeas Petition be denied as moot because this Court no 1 longer has the power to grant Petitioner the relief he requests–credit for the 27 days of lost 2 good conduct time–as Petitioner has already been released from incarceration. Neither party 3 filed an objection to the R&R. When there are no objections to the R&R, the Court will 4 modify or set aside only those portions that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 5 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 6 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). The Court has 7 carefully reviewed the entire record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Pyle’s 8 recommendations are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the findings and recommendations made by Magistrate 11 Judge Pyle in his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) are ADOPTED IN WHOLE. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 13 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot and this action is 14 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 15 accordingly and dismiss this case. 16 17 18 19 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion filed February 25, 2011 (Doc. 19), essentially asking the Court to rule on the Petition, is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Robert Carter at: 1250 Park Ave. W. #406, Highland Park, IL 60035. DATED this 22nd day of June, 2011. 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?