Darcuiel v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Atwater

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus As Moot (Doc. 1 ), ORDER Directing Clerk Of The Court To Enter Judgment And Close Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/28/2016. CASE CLOSED.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HAAMID DARCUIEL,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
ATWATER,
Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01664-JLT
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT (Doc. 1)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO
ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

In this matter, Petitioner challenges the decision of the Bureau of Prisons not to place him in a

17
18

halfway house at the end of his sentence. However, because it appears Petition has been released from

19

custody, the Court ORDERS the petition DISMISSED as MOOT.

20

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court learned that Petitioner had been released from Respondent’s custody on March 11,

21
22

2015. Since the only issued raised in the petition is Petitioner’s placement immediately prior to the

23

completion of his sentence, it thus appeared that the petition was moot and should be dismissed.

24

Accordingly, on November 6, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the petition should

25

not be dismissed as moot. (Doc. 18). That order gave the parties thirty days within which to file a

26

response. To date, neither party has filed a response. Moreover, the Order to Show Cause sent to

27

Petitioner was returned to the Court marked “Undeliverable, no longer at facility” on November 20,

28

2015.
1

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION
The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the

3

Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104

4

S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352

5

(9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties

6

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). The

7

Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before

8

them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v.

9

Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937).

10

As mentioned, the only issue in the petition concerned Petitioner’s placement prior to his

11

release from custody. It now appears that Petitioner has been released from custody. Hence, the issue

12

raised in the petition no longer involves a case or controversy and is, therefore, moot.

13

ORDER

14

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS:

15

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED as MOOT;

16

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file;

17

3. No certificate of appealability is required.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 28, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2