Johnson v. Frauenheim et al

Filing 73

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 1 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/3/2017. Show Cause Response due by 9/6/2017.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DANIAL MARTIN,

11

Petitioner,

12
13
14

v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

15

Case No. 1:17-cv-01011-MJS (HC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
(ECF Nos. 1)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

20

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He initiated this action on July 31, 2017 with a

21

petition stating that he was incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail pending release from

22

Bureau of Prisons custody on August 2, 2017. He asks to be moved to a BOP prison

23

where he can receive re-entry services unavailable to him at the jail.

24

I.

Jurisdiction

25

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in federal custody who can show

26

that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

27

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Here, Petitioner does not contend that housing him in

28

1

the Fresno County Jail is unlawful. He merely alleges that this location is not desirable.

2

Thus, it does not appear that the Court has jurisdiction over the petition under § 2241.

3

II.

4
5

Mootness
Assuming that the Court does have jurisdiction under § 2241, the petition appears

to be moot.

6

A case becomes moot when it no longer satisfies the case-or-controversy

7

requirement of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7

8

(1998). This requirement demands that the parties continue to have a personal stake in

9

the outcome of a federal lawsuit through all stages of the judicial proceeding. Id. “This

10

means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened

11

with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable

12

judicial decision.’” Id. (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477

13

(1990)). A habeas petition is moot when the petitioner's claim for relief cannot be

14

redressed by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by the court. See id. Mootness is

15

jurisdictional. See Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092, 1098. (9th

16

Cir. 2000). When, because of intervening events, a court cannot give any effectual relief

17

in favor of the petitioner, the proceeding should be dismissed as moot. Calderon v.

18

Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996).

19

Here, Petitioner states that his BOP release date is August 2, 2017, a date which

20

already has passed.1 More significantly, however, a review of the Bureau of Prisons

21

inmate locator reflects that Petitioner has been transferred to the supervision of the

22

Residential Reentry Management Field Offices in Sacramento. Thus, it appears that

23

Petitioner may already be receiving the services he seeks in this petition.

24

III.

25

Order
Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should

26
27
28

1

Elsewhere, however, Petitioner states that he has “47 days left” on his sentence. The petition is dated
July 24, 2017, which would indicate a release date of September 9, 2017. The Bureau of Prisons inmate
locator indicates that Petitioner has a release date of September 9, 2017.

2

1

not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and mootness. Petitioner is ORDERED to inform

2

the Court, within thirty (30) days of the service of this order, whether this action still

3

presents a live controversy and, if so, whether he has any basis to claim that his

4

continued confinement at the Fresno County Jail is “in violation of the Constitution or

5

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

6
7

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of
the petition pursuant to Local Rule 110.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 3, 2017

/s/

11

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3