Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00192/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00192-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KULWINDER SINGH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-cv-00192-OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 8]

Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant ton 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. On March 19, 2007, the court entered

an order denying Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. On March 23, 2007, the

copy of that order served on Petitioner was returned by the United States Postal Service with

a notation that Petitioner was out of custody. On May 1, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to

dismiss this petition on the ground of mootness.

Case 1:07-cv-00192-OWW -WMW Document 9 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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 2

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the United States 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). To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant “must have

suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Iron

Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70, 104 S.Ct. at 375; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S.

26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1617, 1924 (1976); NAACP, Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.

The court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R.

Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir. 1993). Judicial th

notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.

1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9 Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 th

F.2d 1236, 1239 (4 Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 th

(6 Cir. 1980). th

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is rendered moot when the petitioner is released

from custody, unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that some collateral, ongoing

consequence would result without habeas relief. See Spencer v. Kemma, 523 U.S. 1, 14

(1998). Here, no such collateral consequence is alleged. Accordingly, the court finds that

this petition has been rendered moot.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition for writ

Case 1:07-cv-00192-OWW -WMW Document 9 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 

Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days

if served by mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00192-OWW -WMW Document 9 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 3