Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05744/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05744-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN MORGAN, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5744 REC SMS HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

vs. TO DISMISS

A.K. SCRIBNER, [Doc. 11]

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on May 20, 2004. Now pending before the

Court is Respondent’s January 31, 2005, motion to dismiss. Petitioner did not file an opposition.

In the petition, Petitioner alleges that a Rules Violation Report (CDC-115) issued to him in

October 2001, for refusing to make a bed move while housed at the California Medical Facility was

unjustified. Petitioner was found guilty of refusing a bed move, but was not assessed any loss of time

credits. (Exhibit 1 attached to Petition.) Petitioner appealed the disposition claiming that his medical

needs precluded him from moving to another cell. Petitioner sought to have the CDC-115 finding

“nullified, vacated & expunged” from his central file. (Exhibit 2 attached to Petition.) Petitioner was

released from custody on June 26, 2004. (Respondent’s Exhibit A, attached to Motion.) 

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05744-REC -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/05 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

DISCUSSION

Because Petitioner is no longer in custody, the propriety of a guilty finding rendered in a

CDC-115 hearing is 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). 

Because the instant case is moot, the Court must DISMISS the petition.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED; and

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the Honorable Robert E. Coyle,

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 Recommendations.” 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 19, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

Case 1:04-cv-05744-REC -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/05 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

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05744-REC -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 3