Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00632/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00632-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMAD HADDAD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00632 OWW WMW HC

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

[5, 6] 

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On June 6, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein. The court

recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted, and Respondent be ordered to

consider the appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to an RRC in light of the factors set forth in §

3621(b), not excluding any other factors deemed appropriate by the BOP, without reference to the

BOP policy promulgated in December 2002 and without reference to the BOP’s February 14, 2005,

amendment to 28 C.F.R. § 570.21. These findings and recommendations were served on the parties

and contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to

be filed within thirty days. Neither party filed objections.

Case 1:07-cv-00632-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 07/27/07 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

On June 6, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for mootness. In his motion to dismiss,

Respondent informs the court that 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.” 

Respondent argues that because the BOP has given Petitioner the review he requested, this petition

has become moot. Petitioner has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to the motion to

dismiss.

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. In this case, the court agrees with

Respondent that because the BOP has given Petitioner the assessment he seeks, this petition has

become moot.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. th

1983)

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate

Judge on June 6, 2007;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss filed June 6, 2007, is GRANTED;

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

Case 1:07-cv-00632-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 07/27/07 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

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00632-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3