Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00081/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00081-1/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 (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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gabriel James Whitetail, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-00081-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

 On February 19, 2016, Petitioner Gabriel James Whitetail, who was confined in 

the Federal Correctional Institution-Safford, filed an Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. (Doc. 3.) Petitioner 

seeks “at least 60 days of good time credit.” (Id.) On August 3, 2016, Magistrate Judge 

D. Thomas Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) recommending that 

the Amended Petition be dismissed. (Doc. 17.) The R & R advised the parties that 

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 R & R. 

 No objections have been filed. More importantly, review of the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons’ inmate locator shows that Petitioner was released on August 4, 2016. See

http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc. Because Petitioner has now been released from custody, it 

appears his Petition no longer meets the “case-or-controversy” requirement under Article 

III, § 2, of the United States Constitution. The “case-or-controversy requirement subsists 

through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate . . . The parties must 

Case 4:16-cv-00081-CKJ Document 18 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 

U.S. 1, 7 (1998), quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). 

“An incarcerated convict’s . . . challenge to the validity of his conviction always satisfies 

the case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration, (or the restriction 

imposed by the terms of the parole) constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the 

conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. 

But once a convict’s sentence has ended, some continuing injury other than the nowexpired term of incarceration, or collateral consequence of the conviction, must exist to 

maintain the suit. Id. 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) (quoting Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. 

Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks 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. See id. 

 Although the Supreme Court has presumed that “a wrongful criminal conviction 

has continuing collateral consequences,” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8, in this case, Petitioner 

does not challenge the validity of his underlying conviction. Rather, he raises only 

claims relating to the terms of his sentence. As Petitioner has now been released, the 

Amended Petition is moot and will be dismissed. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas 

Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 3) is dismissed as moot. 

 (2) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is dismissed as moot. 

 Dated this 1st day of September, 2016. 

Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-00081-CKJ Document 18 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 2