Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02340/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02340-0/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 (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 

TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Petitioner Caulin Spinks, who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Phoenix, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 

I. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION 

On October 22, 2014, Petitioner asked the Court to order the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons to reconsider Petitioner for early release “without inclusion of prior conviction for 

unlawful detention.” (Doc. 1.) On January 26, 2015, Respondent, through the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, completed a review of Petitioner’s offenses and concluded that 

Petitioner’s prior conviction for unlawful restraint does not preclude Petitioner from early 

release. (Doc. 8, Ex. A.) The DSCC has determined that Petitioner is eligible for early 

release. (Id., Ex. A.) Because Petitioner has been awarded the relief sought by means of 

the habeas Petition, the Petition is moot and should be dismissed. 

Caulin Spinks, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Conrad Graeber, 

Respondent. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-14-2340-PHX-DLR (JZB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:14-cv-02340-DLR Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 5
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 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. FACTS OF THE CASE 

 Petitioner is a federal inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner is awaiting entry into the Residential Drug 

Abuse Program (“RDAP”). (Doc. 1 at 4.) Upon successful completion of the RDAP, a 

prisoner may be eligible for early release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) (“The period a 

prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in custody after successfully 

completing a treatment program may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such 

reduction may not be more than one year from the term the prisoner must otherwise 

serve.”). A prior felony conviction for kidnapping would disqualify Petitioner from 

eligibility for early release. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)(4)(vi).1

 Petitioner alleges in his 

habeas Petition that Respondent improperly considered his prior state court conviction for 

unlawful detention as equivalent to a conviction for kidnapping, thereby precluding 

Petitioner from eligibility for early release. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 

 Petitioner filed his habeas Petition on October 22, 2014. At the time the Petition 

was filed, Petitioner had not exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the 

relief sought, as he acknowledged in his Petition. (Id. at 2.) After the habeas Petition 

was docketed, Petitioner filed a formal request seeking administrative relief. 

Additionally, on October 27, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision 

in Abbott v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 771 F.3d 512, 514 (9th Cir. 2014), in which the 

Ninth Circuit held that a conviction for violation of a state law prohibiting unlawful 

restraint did not render a prisoner ineligible for early release because the conviction was 

not equivalent to one for kidnapping. 

 On January 26, 2015, Respondent, through the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ 

Designation and Sentence Computation Center (“DSCC”), completed his review of 

 

1

 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)(4)(vi): “Inmates not eligible for early release. As an exercise of the Director’s discretion, the following categories of inmates are not eligible for early release: . . . (4) Inmates who have a prior felony or misdemeanor conviction for: 

. . . (vi) Kidnaping.” 

Case 2:14-cv-02340-DLR Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

Petitioner’s current and prior offenses, in order to determine whether the offenses 

preclude Petitioner from eligibility for early release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). The 

DSCC concluded that “[b]ased on the above criteria and analysis, this inmate’s current 

and/or prior offense: does not preclude him/her from early release pursuant to 18 USC 

Section 3621 § (e)(2)(B).” (Doc. 8, Ex. A.) 

 B. FEDERAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

 On October 22, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant habeas Petition, which asks the 

Court to order Respondent to consider his eligibility for early release without considering 

Petitioner’s prior offense as equivalent to kidnapping. 

 On February 2, 2014, Respondent filed a Response to the Petition, suggesting the 

Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the Petition because it is moot. (Doc. 8.) 

Petitioner has not filed a reply to the Response to his Petition. 

III. APPLICATION OF LAW 

The writ of habeas corpus affords relief to persons in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a court in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. “The case or controversy requirement of Article III admonishes 

federal courts to avoid premature adjudication and to abstain from entangling themselves 

in abstract disagreements.” U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202, 1208 (10th Cir. 

1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A court must dismiss a case as 

moot if at any point it becomes certain either that “‘the allegedly wrongful behavior could 

not reasonably be expected to recur,’” Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw 

Environmental Assoc. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (citation omitted), or that 

there is no effective relief remaining for the court to provide. See Calderon v. Moore, 

518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996). 

The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a habeas claim that 

is moot. See, e.g., Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Petitioner’s case is rendered moot by the fact that he has received the relief requested. 

Cf. Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing and collecting 

Case 2:14-cv-02340-DLR Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 5
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 

cases wherein a petitioner’s release from detention, parole, or removal rendered a habeas 

petition moot). Compare Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71, 77 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding habeas 

petition was not moot where petitioner’s supervised release left open the possibility of the 

court’s issuance of effectual relief). 

IV. CONCLUSION

 Petitioner no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of his argument because 

he has been afforded the relief sought from Respondent. Because Petitioner no longer 

has a personal stake in the relief sought, his habeas Petition is moot. Abbott, 771 F.3d at 

513. See also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 

1105, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2010). 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss at Doc. 8 

be granted and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(Doc. 1) be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The 

parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days 

within which to file a response to the objections. 

 Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of 

the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:14-cv-02340-DLR Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

the findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2015. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02340-DLR Document 9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 5