Deuaughn-Hobby v. Gore

Filing 17

ORDER granting Respondent's 14 Motion to Dismiss. Court dismisses the Petition with prejudice. Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because Court does not find that reasonable jurists would find Court's conclusion debatable or wrong. The Clerk is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/10/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah) (dsn).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CALVIN DEUAUGHN-HOBBY,

Case No. 18-cv-1196-BAS-AGS

Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER:

WILLIAM GORE, Warden,

15

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
PETITION
[ECF No. 14];
Respondent.

(2) DISMISSING PETITION
[ECF No. 1];

16

AND

17

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

18
19
20

Pro se Petitioner Calvin Deuaughn-Hobby filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

21

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 5, 2018, seeking to challenge his extradition

22

from New York to California. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner avers that his due process right to

23

a habeas corpus proceeding was violated because he “was never given a chance to file a

24

writ of habeas corpus in state court” in New York. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner indicates that he

25

requested a habeas proceeding “[o]n January 25, 2018 in Monroe County Court City of

26

Rochester state of New York,” but did not receive such a proceeding and was “delivered

27

up to the demanding state[.]” (Id. at 4, 5.) This Court instructed the California Attorney

28

General to show cause why the Petition should not be granted. (ECF No. 6.) The Attorney
1
18cv1196

1

General has moved to dismiss the Petition as moot given Petitioner’s extradition to

2

California. (ECF No. 14.) Petitioner has filed a letter with the Court, which the Court has

3

construed as a response to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 16.) For the reasons herein,

4

the Court grants the motion to dismiss, dismisses the Petition, and declines to issue a

5

certificate of appealability.

6
7

DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks relief for the alleged violation of his due process rights caused by

8

New York’s extradition procedure.

9

extradited from New York to California and is no longer in New York state custody. (See

10

generally ECF No. 1.) As the Attorney General notes, Petitioner is currently in custody

11

pending trial for first degree murder and his bail for release from custody has been set at

12

some $2 million. (ECF No. 14-1 Exs. A, B.) The Attorney General argues that the Petition

13

must therefore be dismissed as moot. The Court agrees that the Petition must be dismissed.

14

Pursuant to Article III, federal court jurisdiction extends only to actual cases or

15

controversies. Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70–71 (1983). The case

16

or controversy requirement prevents a federal court from deciding “questions that cannot

17

affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.,

18

494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). A petition for writ of habeas

19

corpus becomes moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy. Wilson v. Terhune,

20

319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). “Mootness is jurisdictional.” Burnett v. Lampert, 432

21

F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005). When a federal court cannot redress a party’s actual

22

injury with a favorable judicial decision, the case is moot and must be dismissed. Spencer

23

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).

As is evident from the Petition, Petitioner was

24

Because Petitioner had already been extradited to California at the time he filed his

25

Petition, the Petition never presented a live controversy for this Court. “Once [a] fugitive

26

is returned to the demanding state, the right to challenge extradition becomes moot: the

27

fugitive is no longer being detained by the asylum state, and so, the legality of his or her

28

detention there is no longer at issue.” Barton v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1298 (6th Cir.
2
18cv1196

1

1997); Harden v. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289, 1298–99 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that, while

2

habeas relief is mooted by the extradition, a civil rights action against the asylum state’s

3

officers who effected the extradition could proceed); Perez v. Mims, No. 1:16-cv-01935-

4

DAD-SKO HC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33406, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017) (dismissing

5

habeas petition challenge to an order of extradition as moot when petitioner was extradited

6

to face murder charges in foreign jurisdiction); Thurston v. State, No. 13-cv-00256-

7

DKW/BMK, 2013 WL 2637827, at *3 (D. Haw. June 12, 2013) (dismissing as moot

8

challenge to extradition when petitioner had already been extradited to demanding state).

9

Therefore, Petitioner’s challenge to New York state extradition procedures must be

10

dismissed for lack of a justiciable controversy.

11

Although Petitioner contends that probable cause was lacking to support his

12

extradition to California (ECF No. 16), “invalid extradition” is not “a sufficient ground

13

upon which to grant habeas relief once the fugitive is present in the jurisdiction from which

14

he fled.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Hudson v.

15

Moran, 760 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 1985); Siegel v. Edwards, 566 F.2d 958, 960 (5th

16

Cir. 1978) (per curiam)). The record shows that Petitioner has been charged with crimes

17

in California and is being processed accordingly. If Petitioner wishes to challenge his

18

criminal charges or any convictions, he must do so first in the California state courts and

19

only after exhausting his state court remedies may he pursue federal habeas related to those

20

convictions. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see also Thurston, 2013 WL 2637827, at *3.

21

CONCLUSION & ORDER

22

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. (ECF No.

23

14.) The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Petition. The Court DECLINES

24

to issue a certificate of appealability because the Court does not find that reasonable jurists

25

would find the Court’s conclusion debatable or wrong. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 28

26

U.S.C. § 2254, foll. Rule 11(a). The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case.

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 10, 2018
3
18cv1196