Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01526/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01526-0/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

---

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 

LARRY FRANK YARBROUGH, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RAFAEL ZUNIGA, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-1526 AC P (TEMP)

 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges the federal Bureau of Prison’s 

decision finding him ineligible for a one year sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3621(e)(2)(B). The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). 

 A status conference was held in this matter on January 13, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in the 

courtroom of the undersigned. Assistant Federal Defender Carolyn Wiggin appeared for 

petitioner. Assistant United States Attorney Christiaan H. Highsmith appeared for respondent. 

At that hearing, and in his status report, respondent stated that he now agrees petitioner is entitled 

to the reduction in sentence of up to one year provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B), as long as 

petitioner successfully completes the third, non-custodial step of the Residential Drug Abuse 

Treatment Program contemplated by that statute. Petitioner’s sentence computation has been 

Case 2:14-cv-01526-AC Document 23 Filed 01/20/16 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

revised to show a conditional early release date of January 18, 2019, which reflects a credit for 

completion of the drug treatment program. In light of respondent’s actions in this regard, the 

parties are in agreement that this matter is now moot because petitioner has received all of the 

relief he is requesting in the instant habeas petition. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402 

(1975) (when the alleged wrongful conduct has ceased and there is no reasonable expectation that 

the wrong will be repeated, an action to enjoin that wrong is moot). The court agrees that this 

action is moot and will dismiss petitioner’s habeas petition without prejudice. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s habeas petition is dismissed as moot. 

This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s right to reinstate this action should he 

successfully complete the third step of the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program and not 

receive the reduction in his sentence provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). 

DATED: January 19, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-01526-AC Document 23 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2