Jaimes-Perez v. Benov

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED for Mootness re 13 MOTION to DISMISS filed by Michael L. Benov; referred to Judge O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/6/14. Objections to F&R due by 8/25/2014(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE JAIMES-PEREZ, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:14-cv-00380-LJO-SAB-HC Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS v. MICHAEL L. BENOV, [ECF NO. 13] Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 On March 19, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. On 20 July 7, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot in light of Petitioner’s 21 release from custody. 22 23 DISCUSSION The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives 24 the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 25 70 (1983); NAACP., W. Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A 26 case becomes moot if “the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally 27 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal 28 Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before 1 1 them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. 2 Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). In this case, Petitioner contends that his due process rights were violated during a 3 4 disciplinary hearing. However, Petitioner has since been released from custody. Therefore, 5 there is no further relief that this Court can grant. The instant petition is moot. RECOMMENDATION 6 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 7 8 be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED for mootness. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, 9 10 United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and 11 Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 12 California. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Findings and 13 Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all 14 parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 15 Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days 16 after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections 18 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 19 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: August 6, 2014 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?