Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00882/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00882-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BHARATKUMAR PATEL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00882-AWI-TAG HC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT (Doc. 9)

ORDER WITHDRAWING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF SEPTEMBER 22,

2006 (Doc. 7)

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 27, 2004, Petitioner pleaded guilty to a violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (II), and 1324(a)(1)(B)(i)(conspiracy to harbor illegal

aliens), and was sentenced by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to seventyone months incarceration. (Doc. 6, Exh. 1). 

The instant petition was filed on July 11, 2006. (Doc. 1). On September 22, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended the petition be

GRANTED and Respondent be ORDERED to consider the appropriateness of transferring Petitioner

to an Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”) in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), not

excluding any other factors deemed appropriate by the Bureau of Prisons (“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. (Doc. 7). The Report and Recommendation was served on

all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twelve days of the date of

service of the order. 

Case 1:06-cv-00882-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

On October 31, 2006, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, alleging that

Respondent had conducted a re-evaluation of Petitioner’s release date to RRC, without reference to

the challenged regulations, that the relief Petitioner had requested had been afforded to him, and

therefore the petition was now moot. (Doc. 9). Respondent states, “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.’” (Id. at p. 2). As a result of this evaluation, the BOP

determined Petitioner is to spend “30-60 days in a Residential Re-entry Center before his release.”

(Id.). In the motion to dismiss, Respondent has provided a copy of the completed form entitled,

“Institutional Referral for CCC Placement.” (Doc. 9, Exh. 3, p. 2). According to the form,

Petitioner was evaluated on October 17, 2006, consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation. (Id.).

DISCUSSION

Because Petitioner has already been granted the relief he requested and recommended by the

Magistrate Judge, the case is now moot. The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the

Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor

Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (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 (1982). 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 (1971) per curiam. 

Here, the instant petition requested an order from this Court directed to the Bureau of Prisons

requiring it “to immediately in good faith, assess Petitioner...based upon the criteria in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3621(b), without reference to BOP policy promulgated in December 2002 and without reference to

28 C.F.R. § 570.12 to determine Petitioner’s duration of placement in pre-release CCC.” (Doc. 1, p.

3). This appears to be precisely the relief provided by Respondent in its re-evaluation conducted on

October 17, 2006. (Doc. 9, p. 2). Because there is no further relief that this Court can provide to

Petitioner, the petition is now moot. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00882-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Petitioner objects to the motion to dismiss, contending that his re-assessment was not

conducted in good faith because Respondents have not shown that they considered two of the

required factors under § 3621(b), i.e., “history and characteristics of the prisoner,” and “any

statement by the court that imposed the sentence.” (Doc. 10, p. 3). Petitioner contends that the result

of the re-assessment was the same as the original assessment, thus implicitly proving that

Respondents did not conduct the re-assessment in good faith. (Id.). 

Petitioner’s objections are without merit. First, § 3621(b) specifies the criteria to be

considered, but does not specify the weight to be given to each factor, nor does it require that

Respondents provide a written explanation of how the statutory factors were applied in arriving at

the final determination. The fact that Petitioner may have had an exemplary prison history is not, by

itself, determinative of any particular result. Rather, all of the factors must be considered. Likewise,

Petitioner’s assumption that Respondent did not have available “any statement” by the sentencing

court is mere speculation. Respondent either had, or had access to the judgment itself, which would

contain any comments the court wished to include. The statute does not require that Respondent

obtain a transcript of the sentencing hearing in order to satisfy § 3621(b). 

Finally, Petitioner’s complaint that the result of the re-assessment was identical to the

original assessment misses the point. The petition challenged the process by which the assessment

had originally been made, and sought a re-assessment made without reference to the BOP’s

December 2002 policy or 28 C.F.R. § 570.21. (Doc. 1, p. 3). The petition did not seek a specific

outcome for that re-assessment. Nor, indeed, would such a request be appropriate in these

proceedings. 

Petitioner has been afforded the re-assessment he sought. That he is not satisfied with the

result of that re-assessment is irrelevant so long as the re-assessment was conducted in compliance

with the parameters set forth in the Report and Recommendation of September 22, 2006. Nothing in

this record suggests that such is not the case. There is nothing further this Court can do. 

Accordingly, the Petition is now moot and should be dismissed. 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00882-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

 ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of September 22, 2006

(Doc. 7), is hereby WITHDRAWN.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9), be GRANTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED as moot; and

3. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment.

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

assigned to this 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

twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, 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 to the objections shall be served and filed within ten

(10) 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 District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00882-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 04/18/07 Page 4 of 4