Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01109-1/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

CESAR ERNESTO RIVAS,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL L. BENOV, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01109-SAB-HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING THE 

PETITION AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING 

THE CLERK TO CLOSE THE CASE

(ECF No. 14)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent is represented in this action by Melanie L. Alsworth 

of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California. Both parties 

have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as moot.

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the Taft Correctional 

Institution located in Taft, California, pursuant to a judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (B)(1)(A). 

On July 16, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 

Case 1:14-cv-01109-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Court. Petitioner challenges a disciplinary proceeding as a result of an incident report which was 

issued on April 14, 2014. At the disciplinary hearing held by a Taft disciplinary hearing officer 

(DHO) on May 6, 2014, Petitioner was found guilty of possession of a weapon and possession of 

anything not authorized, and sanctioned with a loss of forty-one days of good conduct credits, 1 

month disciplinary segregation, and 1 month loss of commissary privileges. Petitioner argues 

that because the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) was not an employee of the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons (BOP) and thus lacked the authority to conduct the disciplinary hearing and make 

findings resulting in punishment, Petitioner suffered a violation of his right to due process of 

law, and that Petitioner’s due process right to an independent and impartial decision maker at the 

disciplinary hearing was violated. 

On October 29, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (ECF 

No. 14). On December 3, 2014, petitioner filed his opposition to Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 16). 

While the instant case was pending, Petitioner filed a second habeas petition in this 

Court, which was assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-0118-JLT-HC. In Case No. 1:14-cv-01118-JLTHC, on November 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston ordered that the Court 

construe the petition in Case No. 1:14-cv-01118-JLT-HC as a motion to amend the petition in 

Case No. 1:14-cv-01109-SAB. On December 31, 2014, the undersigned granted Petitioner’s 

motion to amend his petition with the petition in Case No. 1:14-cv-0118-JLT-HC. (ECF No. 

17). The Court did not issue a new scheduling order, because the matter had already been 

briefed and the amended petition is nearly identical to the original petition and doesn’t raise any 

additional claims.

II. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that Petitioner’s claims are now moot, because the disciplinary 

charges were reheard via teleconference on July 30, 2014, by Randy J. McWilliams, a certified 

DHO of the BOP. At the rehearing, the BOP DHO found that Petitioner had committed the 

prohibited misconduct, and he assessed the same disallowance of good conduct time credits, 

Case 1:14-cv-01109-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 5
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

disciplinary segregation, and loss of commissary privileges. (ECF No. 14-1 at 1-3). 

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives 

the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. See Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 

67, 70, 104 S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983) (per curiam). Article III requires a case or controversy in 

which a litigant has a personal stake in the outcome of the suit throughout all stages of federal 

judicial proceedings and has suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favourable 

judicial decision. Id. A case becomes moot if “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 (1982) (per curiam) (internal citations omitted). Federal courts are

“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, 404 (1971) (per curiam). A petition for 

writ of habeas corpus is moot where a petitioner’s claim for relief cannot be redressed by a 

favourable decision of the court issuing a writ of habeas corpus. Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 

996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 

L.Ed.2d 43 (1998)).

Here, documentation submitted by Respondent in support of the motion to dismiss 

demonstrates that the claims initially alleged by Petitioner are no longer in controversy. The 

charges were reheard by an officer who had the very qualifications that Petitioner had alleged 

were required by principles of due process of law and the pertinent regulations. It is undisputed 

that the findings and sanctions that constituted the object of Petitioner’s challenges in the petition 

have now been superseded by the findings and sanctions of the certified BOP DHO. 

When, because of intervening events, a court cannot give any effectual relief in favor of 

the petitioner, the proceeding should be dismissed as moot. Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 

150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996). In the present case, it appears that the only relief 

that Petitioner sought was invalidation of the findings and associated sanctions as a result of his 

May 6, 2014 disciplinary hearing. It appears that the rehearing of the incident report by an 

indisputably qualified DHO has effectuated the relief sought by Petitioner. The Taft Hearing 

Officer’s May 6, 2014 findings and sanctions which Petitioner challenges in the instant habeas 

Case 1:14-cv-01109-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 3 of 5
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

petition have been superseded by the DHO’s findings. Therefore, it is no longer possible for this 

Court to issue a decision redressing the injury that he alleges he suffered as a result of the May 6, 

2014 disciplinary hearing. In addition, to the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the results of 

the new hearings on due process grounds, he must first exhaust his available administrative 

remedies and then file a new habeas petition. See Huang v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th 

Cir. 2004); Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 

542.10–542.19 (setting forth the BOP's administrative procedures). Petitioner has not asserted 

any factual or legal basis that would preclude a finding of mootness.

III.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district 

court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to

issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court 

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate 

which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph 

(2).

Case 1:14-cv-01109-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 4 of 5
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

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 

appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 

demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 

his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

In the present case, the Court does not find that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s 

determination that Petitioner’s petition is moot debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement 

to proceed further. Accordingly, the Court hereby declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IV.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as moot;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case; and

4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01109-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/15 Page 5 of 5