Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00489/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00489-0/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 (Federal)

---

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 www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp Register # 42796-208.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George W. Foushi, II, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Lionel Craig Apker, Jr., 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-489-RCC-CRP

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner George Foushi, who was confined at the Satellite Prison Camp in Tucson,

Arizona, filed a Petition for A Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody Under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Habeas Petition”) on August 9, 2010. (Doc. 1). On April 20, 2011,

Petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw his 2241 Habeas Petition. (Doc. 16). In his Motion,

Petitioner states he received the relief he sought through his Habeas Petition, which was

transfer to a residential reentry center ("RRC"). Records from the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Inmate Locator show Petitioner is now located in a residential reentry center through the

Community Corrections Center in Phoenix, Arizona.1

 

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court dismiss with prejudice the

Habeas Petition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides for dismissal of an action

pursuant to court order. The Court recommends this case be dismissed with prejudice

because Petitioner has received the relief sought and thus, there is no longer a case or

controversy before this Court. 

Case 4:10-cv-00489-RCC Document 17 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Under Article III of the United States Constitution, the jurisdiction of federal courts

is limited to “cases” or “controversies.” U.S.Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. A federal court may

not review a moot claim, because “the exercise of federal judicial power is conditioned on

the existence of an [Article III] case or controversy.” Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301, 306

n. 3 (1964), Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna,

523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and “federal courts have no

jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy exists.”

Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). If there is no longer any possibility that relief can be obtained for a claim, that

claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. 

Recommendation

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its independent

review, grant Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 16) and dismiss with prejudice the

Habeas Petition.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file

written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If

objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 10-489-TUCRCC.

The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to

George Foushi, II # 42796-208 Care of CCM Phoenix; Community Corrections Office; 230

N First Ave, Suite 405; Phoenix, Arizona 85003.

DATED this 12th day of May, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00489-RCC Document 17 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 2