Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01190/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01190-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAYFUN KARAUZUM,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN MERLAK,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT

ECF No. 1

Petitioner Tayfun Karauzum, a federal prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the court for preliminary 

review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases, Rule 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas 

petition if it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 

Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th 

Cir. 1998). We order petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot.

Discussion

Petitioner’s sole request for relief is a change in his prison placement from incarceration 

to home confinement. ECF No. 1. Petitioner stated that his projected release date was December 

Case 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-HBK Document 11 Filed 02/24/20 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

11, 2019, see id. at 7, and the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) inmate locator indicates that he was 

released on that day.1

The “case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2, of the Constitution subsists 

through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate . . . . The parties must 

continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank 

Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, throughout civil 

proceedings, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable 

to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 477. “[I]f it 

appears that [the court is] without power to grant the relief requested, then the case is moot.” 

Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Custody is a “concrete injury.” See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Once 

custody has ended, “some concrete and continuing injury” other than detention—a “collateral 

consequence”—must exist if a habeas petition is to be maintained. See id. When a habeas 

petitioner challenges his underlying criminal conviction, collateral consequences are presumed to 

exist, even after a petitioner has been released from custody. See id. However, collateral 

consequences are not presumed where a habeas petitioner challenges an action other than a 

criminal conviction. Id. at 12-13. In those cases, the petition is moot once the petitioner is 

released from custody, unless the petitioner can show that he will suffer collateral consequences. 

Id. at 14. 

Here, petitioner’s sole request for relief was placement in home confinement, ECF No. 1 

at 5, and he is no longer in BOP’s custody. Because it is now “impossible for [the] court to grant 

any effectual relief” on petitioner’s claim, that claim is moot. See Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 

F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2018). Further, petitioner did not allege any current or future collateral 

consequences from his custody. Because collateral consequences are not presumed in habeas 

cases challenging custody, petitioner had the burden to show he would suffer collateral 

 

1

See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited 

February 19, 2020) (showing petitioner Tayfun Karauzum, inmate number 58247-053, released 

on December 11, 2019). 

Case 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-HBK Document 11 Filed 02/24/20 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

consequences. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14. Therefore, because petitioner is no longer in custody

and he has failed to allege any collateral consequences of his custody, his petition is moot. See id. 

Order

Within fourteen days of the date of service of this order, petitioner must show cause why 

the court should not summarily dismiss the petition as moot. Failure to comply with this order 

may result in the dismissal of the petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-HBK Document 11 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 3