Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00415/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00415-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE JAMES PADUA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00415 LJO NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #4]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On March 15, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

Petitioner claims the BOP is unlawfully denying him consideration for placement into a Residential

Re-entry Center (“RRC”). Petitioner was sentenced to serve twenty-four (24) months imprisonment

on November 1, 2006; he has a projected release date of July 28, 2008.

On May 1, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot, because

Respondent has conducted the inquiry Petitioner requested as relief in his petition. In his motion,

Respondent states, “The BOP has evaluated petitioner ‘without reference to the time constraints

imposed by 28 CFR § 570.20-21 or the 2002 and 2005 Community Corrections Policies.’” See

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter “Motion”). As a result of this evaluation, the BOP has

Case 1:07-cv-00415-LJO-LJO Document 5 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

determined Petitioner is to spend “30-60 days in a Residential Re-entry Center before his release.”

Id. As proof, Respondent has provided a copy of the completed form entitled, “Institutional Referral

for CCC Placement.” See Exhibit 3, Motion. According to the form, Petitioner’s reassessment was

conducted on April 5, 2007.

Because Petitioner has already been granted the relief he requested and recommended by the

Magistrate Judge, the case is now moot. The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the

Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y

v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104 S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of

Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented

are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v.

Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183 (1984). The Federal Court is “without power to

decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. Rice,

404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 406 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth,

300 U.S. 227, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-464 (1937). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as moot; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00415-LJO-LJO Document 5 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2