Castillo v. Benov

Filing 16

ORDER for Petitioner to SHOW CAUSE Why Petition should not be Dismissed as Moot; ORDER PERMITTING Respondent to Reply to Petitioner's Response to Order to Show Cause; Show Cause Response due within Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/29/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 1:12-cv-01982 AWI MJS HC NOEL CASTILLO, 12 13 ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW Petitioner, CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT v. ORDER PERMITTING RESPONDENT TO REPLY TO PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 15 16 MICHAEL L. BENOV, Respondent. 17 18 19 Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 Respondent has responded to the petition, in which Petitioner challenges a 21 disciplinary proceeding and seeks the restoration of good time credit. The court required 22 Respondent to respond to the petition, and the matter has been fully briefed by the 23 parties. However, according to the Federal Inmate Locator, available online, Petitioner's 24 release date was August 12, 2013. The Federal Inmate Locator indicates that Petitioner 25 has been released from Bureau of Prisons custody. 26 Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide cases that are moot because the courts’ 27 constitutional authority extends to only actual cases or controversies. Iron Arrow Honor 28 Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70-71 (1983). Article III requires a case or controversy 1 1 in which a litigant has a personal stake in the outcome of the suit throughout all stages of 2 federal judicial proceedings and has suffered some actual injury that can be redressed 3 by a favorable judicial decision. Id. A petition for writ of habeas corpus becomes moot 4 when it no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution. 5 Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). A petition for writ of habeas 6 corpus is moot where a petitioner’s claim for relief cannot be redressed by a favorable 7 decision of the court issuing a writ of habeas corpus. Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 8 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). Mootness is 9 jurisdictional. See Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 10 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a moot petition must be dismissed because nothing remains 11 before the Court to be remedied. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. at 18. 12 A case becomes moot because of the absence of an actual case or controversy 13 where the petitioner no longer suffers or anticipates an injury traceable to the respondent 14 which is likely to be redressed by a judicial decision. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. at 11. 15 Although a habeas claim for credit on a sentence may be mooted by the petitioner’s 16 release, it is also possible that the claim remains viable. For example, a habeas 17 challenge to a term of imprisonment is not mooted by a petitioner’s release where the 18 petitioner remains on supervised release and there is a possibility that the petitioner 19 could receive a reduction in his term of supervised release. Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 20 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010). In Reynolds, it was held that a proceeding pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a decision of the BOP denying the petitioner’s request for 22 credit towards his federal sentence for days spent in state custody was not moot where 23 the petitioner was released and remained on supervised release, and the BOP’s internal, 24 favorable decision did not recalculate the petitioner’s release date as the petitioner had 25 requested. 26 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, 27 Petitioner shall show cause why the Court should not dismiss the petition for mootness. 28 If Petitioner files a response to this order, Respondent may file a reply to Petitioner’s 2 1 response no later than ten (10) days after the date of service of Petitioner’s response on 2 Respondent. Petitioner is instructed that a failure to comply with this order may itself be 3 considered a basis for imposing sanctions against Petitioner pursuant to Local Rule 110, 4 and will result in dismissal of the petition. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: 9 October 29, 2013 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END: 10 Michael J. Seng ci4d6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?