Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01266/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01266-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. MCKENZIE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ANDREWS, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01266-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND AND SUPPORT

CLAIM (Doc. 3)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO ENFORCE LIBERTY INTEREST

(Doc. 4)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO EXPEDITE (Doc. 9)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS AS MOOT THE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 5, 2005, Petitioner, then a state prisoner serving a four-year term of

incarceration for convictions under California Penal Code § 470(d) (check fraud) and California

Penal Code § 459 (probation violation), filed the instant Petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). In his Petition, Petitioner raises three claims:

(1) violations of his federal constitutional rights in improperly adjudicating a prison disciplinary

proceeding, resulting in a “re-calculation” of his proposed parole date from August 8, 2005, to

February 5, 2006; (2) violation of his First Amendment rights by prison mail room personnel,

who failed to properly “record Petitioner’s outgoing legal and/or confidential mail”; and

(3) violations of Petitioner’s civil rights by prison personnel who allegedly were engaged in

“continued vindictiveness and retaliation” against Petitioner. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6; Doc. 4, pp. 1-10). 

Case 1:05-cv-01266-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 8
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

Ground One in the petition fails to allege any grounds for habeas relief within the 1

petition itself. Instead, Petitioner’s Ground One refers the Court to his Motion To Enforce

Liberty Interest (Doc. 4), filed on the same date as the petition, which expands on the legal and

factual bases for Ground One. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Thus, as discussed infra, in addressing the Motion

to Enforce Liberty Interest qua motion, the Court must necessarily address in some fashion

Petitioner’s Ground One in the petition.

On June 21, 2006, subsequent to the filing of Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite, the 2

Magistrate Judge in United States District Court, Eastern District of California case no. 1:05-cv00045-AWI-WMW, issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Petitioner’s civil

rights case be dismissed for failure to state a claim because his complaint did not allege that his

conviction in the prison disciplinary proceedings had been invalidated. (Doc. 18, p. 2). On

2

On the same date as the Petition was filed, October 5, 2005, Petitioner filed an

Emergency Motion for Court to Enforce Petitioner’s Liberty Interest. (Doc. 4). In his Petition,

Petitioner incorporates by reference the allegations in the Emergency Motion in his first claim

for relief, related to various prison disciplinary proceedings that were adjudicated previously.

(Doc. 1, p. 5). Also on October 5, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend and Support Claim 1

No. 2 in his pending federal petition. (Doc. 3). That document contains additional information

regarding alleged improprieties in the state prison’s mail room vis-a-vis the recording of

Petitioner’s outgoing mail. (Id.). 

On March 20, 2006, Petitioner advised the Court that he had been released from custody

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to federal authorities,

and is now detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in a

federal facility in El Centro, California. (Doc. 8). 

On May 4, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Expedite, seeking an expedited ruling on his

Emergency Motion filed October 25, 2005. (Doc. 9, p. 1). Petitioner contends that a

determination as to his habeas rights in the contested prison disciplinary proceedings in state

prison “is critical and influential to the pending Civil Right’s Complaint, case no: CV F 05-0045

AWI WMW P, currently pending in this honorable court.” (Id.). Petitioner further alleges that

the Magistrate Judge and District Judge assigned to that case have “iterated that the validity of

the contested CDC-115 of Sept. 26, 2004 must be adjudicated prior to bringing the said matter on

the civil rights complaint.” (Id. at p. 2). 

2

Case 1:05-cv-01266-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 8
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

August 28, 2006, the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations, dismissed the

action for failure to state a claim, and closed the case. (Doc. 19). Accordingly, the basis for the

Motion to Expedite, i.e., the pendency of Petitioner’s civil rights claim, no longer exists.

3

DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner’s Claims Should Be Dismissed.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule

4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990).

Otherwise, the Court will order Respondent to respond to the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases. The Court’s preliminary review of the instant petition indicates that

Grounds One, Two, and Three are moot; additionally, Grounds Two and Three are not within the

purview of the Court’s habeas jurisdiction, but should instead have been filed as civil rights

claims.

1. Ground One.

Ground One in the Petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot because Petitioner is

challenging the postponement of parole date on a sentence for which Petitioner is not presently

incarcerated. 

“The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain

petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are 'in custody in violation of the Constitution

or laws or treaties of the United States.' ” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490, 109 S.Ct. 1923 

(1989) (per curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)) (emphasis in original); see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a). A habeas petitioner must be in custody “at the time his petition is filed,” or the court is

without jurisdiction to hear his petition. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has not taken a literal view of the “in custody”

requirement, observing that “besides physical imprisonment, there are other restraints on a man's

liberty, restraints not shared by the public generally, which have been thought sufficient in the

English-speaking world to support the issuance of habeas corpus.” Jones v. Cunningham,

Case 1:05-cv-01266-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 8
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

4

371 U.S. 236, 240, 83 S.Ct. 373 (1963) (holding that persons released from incarceration on

parole are “in custody” under 28 U.S.C. § 2241); see also Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612

(9th Cir. 1990). Thus, if the petition were filed while Petitioner was “in custody,” Petitioner’s

subsequent release would not necessarily deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction nor

would it render the petition moot. Carafas v. La Valle, 391 U.S. 234, 238, 88 S. Ct. 1556 (1968). 

An action is moot "when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a

legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th

Cir.1986) (citations and internal quotations omitted). The sole remedy in habeas corpus review

of state court convictions is the invalidation of the conviction that placed the petitioner in

custody. “Nullification of a conviction may have important benefits for a defendant,...but urging

in a habeas proceeding the correction of a sentence already served is another matter.” North

Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 92 S.Ct. 402 (1971). As the Supreme Court noted, “[c]ollateral

review of a final judgment is not an endeavor to be undertaken lightly. It is not warranted absent

a showing that the complainant suffers actual harm from the judgment that he seeks to avoid.” 

Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632, 102 S.Ct. 1322 (1982).

Here, Petitioner’s own allegations indicate that he was originally scheduled to be paroled

on August 8, 2005, but that CDCR “recalculated” his release date to February 5, 2006. As

discussed previously, Petitioner was released from CDCR custody to ICE custody on or before

March 20, 2006, when he notified the Court that he had already been transferred to federal

custody. 

Accordingly, it appears that as of at least March 20, 2006, Petitioner had completed his

sentence on the prior state convictions. Thus, no active case or controversy exists with regard to

that sentence. See Nonette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2002) (habeas claim regarding

loss of good-time credits at prison disciplinary hearing is moot and must be dismissed as lacking

case or controversy because petitioner had already fully served the period of incarceration he is

attacking). Accordingly, any habeas claim based upon the allegedly erroneous execution of that

earlier sentence is moot.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01266-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 09/08/06 Page 4 of 8
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

5

Ground One is also moot because the Court cannot grant Petitioner any relief.

Picron-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991)(a claim is moot when the court no

longer has power to grant the requested relief); see also Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338,

(9th Cir. 1985) (a case is moot when the issues are no longer live or the parties no longer have a

legally cognizable interest in the outcome, and when a court’s decision will no longer have an

impact). Since Petitioner is no longer in CDCR custody and is no longer serving time for the

prior state conviction, the execution of which he challenges in this petition, and since he does not

seek the overturning of his prior convictions, the Court cannot grant Petitioner any relief on this

claim. Hence, for this reason as well, Ground One is moot.

2. Ground Two.

As discussed, a federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the

petitioner can show that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality

or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991), quoting

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-142 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d

at 574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In Ground Two, Petitioner contends that state prison personnel violated various CDCR

policies, thereby violating Petitioner’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment, by

failing to properly record his mail and by interfering with his confidential legal mail. This

allegation challenges a condition of confinement, not the fact of confinement, and therefore is a

claim properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not under 18 U.S.C. § 2254. McCarthy, 500

U.S. at 141-142.

Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the claim could be construed as attacking the

fact of confinement, it is now moot since Petitioner is no longer in custody of CDCR and his

mail is no longer subject to the CDCR procedures which Petitioner claims were violated.

Case 1:05-cv-01266-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 09/08/06 Page 5 of 8
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

6

Hence, even if this Court had habeas jurisdiction to decide this issue, it no longer has any power

to provide Petitioner a remedy. Thus, the issue is moot. 

3. Ground Three.

In this claim, Petitioner asserts that various CDCR personnel violated his constitutional

rights through a variety of actions during his incarceration in state prison. As with Ground Two,

Ground Three challenges the conditions of Petitioner’s state confinement, not the fact of his state

confinement, and therefore is properly raised as a civil rights claim under § 1983, not as a habeas

claim under § 2254. And, as with Ground Two, even if this Court had jurisdiction to resolve the

matter under federal habeas law, the issue would be moot since Petitioner is no longer in state

custody and therefore the Court could not afford Petitioner a habeas remedy. Any monetary

remedy for misconduct of persons acting under color of state law must be pursued under the civil

rights provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Because each of the three claims in the instant petition are moot, the Court will

recommend that the instant Petition be dismissed.

B. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Ground Two.

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Amend and Support Claim No. 2 to include additional

evidence and information regarding the practices of the CDCR as they relate to Petitioner’s mail. 

(Doc. 3). In light of the Court’s recommendation that Ground Two is moot and is not a viable

ground for habeas relief, the Motion itself is moot and must be denied.

C. Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Petitioner’s Liberty Interest.

Petitioner has also filed an Emergency Motion to Enforce Petitioner’s Liberty Interest.

(Doc. 4). This Emergency Motion is best understood as a supplemental argument to Ground One

in the Petition. Indeed, Petitioner expressly incorporates this Motion by reference in Ground One

of his Petition, which otherwise contains no independent allegations whatsoever. Because the

Court is recommending that Ground One be dismissed as moot, no need exists to supplement

Ground One with additional facts and legal arguments, and therefore the Court will deny

Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Enforce Petitioner’s Liberty Interest as moot.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01266-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 09/08/06 Page 6 of 8
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

7

D. Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite.

Finally, Petitioner has filed a Motion to Expedite Pending Emergency Motion. (Doc. 9).

In this Motion, Petitioner seeks to expedite the resolution of his habeas petition on the grounds

that its resolution is required in order for Petitioner to proceed with his civil rights case in case

no. 1:05-cv-00045-AWI-WMW. However, as noted previously, that civil rights case has been

dismissed by the Court for failure to state a claim. Thus, no “emergency” exists on which to

expedite the resolution of the instant petition. 

However, in reviewing the above motions, it was necessary for the Court to address

Petitioner’s underlying claims. Thus, effectively, the Court has done what Petitioner has

requested, i.e., provide a timely resolution to his habeas claims in order for him to proceed with

his civil rights case. Therefore, the Court will also deny Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite as moot. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and Support Claim No. 2 (Doc. 3), is DENIED as

MOOT;

2. Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Petitioner’s Liberty Interest (Doc. 4), is DENIED as

MOOT; and,

3. Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite Pending Emergency Motion is DENIED (Doc. 9), as

MOOT.

RECOMMENDATION

The Court RECOMMENDS that the instant Petition (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED for

MOOTNESS and for failure to state a claim for which habeas relief may be granted.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 of this Report and Recommendation, 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 Report and Recommendation.” Replies

Case 1:05-cv-01266-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 09/08/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01266-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 09/08/06 Page 8 of 8