Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00780/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00780-3/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

JAMES ARCEDIANO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0780 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 14]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On September 18, 2006, the undersigned issued an order granting Petitioner’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus and directed Respondent to consider, within fourteen days from the date of

the Opinion, the appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to a Residential Re-entry Center

(“RRC”) in light of the factors set forth in § 3621(b), 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. (Court Doc. 12.) Judgment was entered in favor of

Respondent on this same date. (Court Doc. 13.)

On September 25, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss because Petitioner was

released to a RRC on September 21, 2006, prior to any re-hearing. Respondent therefore

contends that Petitioner has already, in the normal course of events, received the transfer he

requested, and his petition should be denied as moot.

Case 1:06-cv-00780-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 12/13/06 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

Because judgment has been entered in this case, and Respondent’s motion to dismiss is

not a properly filed post-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, it must be DENIED. Furthermore, the fact that any relief for Petitioner is now moot,

is not a proper ground to be raised under Rule 60. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion to dismiss

as MOOT is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00780-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2