Butler v. Salazar

Filing 18

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/1/2024 RECOMMENDING petitioner's 1 application for a writ of habeas corpus be denied as moot based upon petitioner's release from confinement, and the Clerk be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODNEY BUTLER,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-02488 KJM AC

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOSIOS SALAZAR,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a former federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17
18

habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. For the

20

reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s habeas corpus application

21

be dismissed as moot.

22

I.

Factual and Procedural History

23

Petitioner is challenging a prison disciplinary conviction and is seeking the restoration of

24

14 days of good time credit. ECF No. 1 at 4. On October 13, 2023, the undersigned issued an

25

order for petitioner to show cause why his habeas petition should not be dismissed as moot based

26

on his release from incarceration. ECF No. 16. Petitioner has failed to respond to the order to

27

show cause.

28

/////

1

II.

2

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of actual,

3

ongoing controversies between litigants. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). “The

4

case-or-controversy requirement demands that, through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,

5

the parties continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” United States v.

6

Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

7

(rejecting argument that appeal was moot because appellant was released from prison, but still on

8

supervised release). The basic question in determining mootness is “whether there is a present

9

controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of

Legal Standards

10

Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). A case or controversy must exist

11

throughout all stages of litigation. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). If at any time during

12

the course of litigation a plaintiff ceases to suffer, or be threatened with, “an actual injury

13

traceable to the defendant,” and that is “likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision,”

14

the matter is moot. Id. at 7.

15

III.

16

In this case, petitioner has been released from custody during the pendency of the

17

proceeding. Because the BOP has already released petitioner, even with the adverse disciplinary

18

conviction from 2017 remaining on his record, there is no relief that can be provided by a

19

favorable judicial decision. Absent demonstrable collateral consequences arising from his prison

20

disciplinary conviction, petitioner’s case is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)

21

(stating that “[o]nce the convict’s sentence has expired, however, some concrete and continuing

22

injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole-some ‘collateral consequence’ of the

23

conviction-must exist if the suit is to be maintained.”). Petitioner did not respond to the court’s

24

order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as moot, or otherwise demonstrate the

25

existence of collateral consequences. Therefore, the undersigned recommends dismissing the

26

pending § 2241 petition as moot.

27

////

28

////

Analysis

2

1

IV.

2

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not

3
4

Plain Language Summary for Party Representing Himself in Court

intended as legal advice.
Your case is being dismissed because there is no longer an ongoing controversy about

5

your 2017 prison disciplinary conviction since you have been released from incarceration and did

6

not respond to the court’s order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as moot.

7

CONCLUSION

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

9

1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be denied as moot

10

based upon petitioner’s release from confinement.

11

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

14

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

15

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

16

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

17

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

18

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

19

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

DATED: April 1, 2024

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3