Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01494/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01494-1/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

—o0o—

JOSE JESUS RAMIREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-cv-01494-AWI-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS AS MOOT (Doc. 1)

ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed his petition on October 4, 2006, claiming that the process employed by the

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to determine the amount of time Petitioner should be assigned to a

Residential Re-Entry Center (“RRC”) prior to his full release from BOP custody was illegal and

unconstitutional. (Doc. 1). Petitioner indicated that he was serving a sentence of twelve months

and one day and that his projected release date was January 28, 2007. (Id. at p. 2).

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

Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 

(1983); N.A.A.C.P., 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 (1984). The Court has

no power to decide cases that do not affect the rights of litigants in the case before it. DeFunis v.

Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-528 (9th Cir. 1996). 

“To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant must have suffered some

Case 1:06-cv-01494-AWI -TAG Document 9 Filed 11/14/07 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

actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70

(citing Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976)); N.A.A.C.P., Western

Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.

The Court has determined from the Bureau of Prison’s own database that Petitioner was

released from custody on February 27, 2007; his status is now listed as “released.” Petitioner’s

sole ground for relief concerned when the BOP should place Petitioner in an RRC prior to his

release from custody. As mentioned, it appears that Petitioner is no longer in the custody of the

BOP. Therefore, there is no further relief that this Court can provide in these habeas

proceedings. Accordingly, the action is moot and should be dismissed. Murphy v. Hunt, 455

U.S. at 481; Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as MOOT. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 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 fifteen (15) 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 Findings and Recommendations.” 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 District Judge 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01494-AWI -TAG Document 9 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 2