Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00486/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00486-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN MCVAY,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN MERLAK,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00486-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

TO DISMISS THE CASE

OBJECTIONS DUE IN 14 DAYS

ECF Nos. 1, 5

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Petitioner Steven McVay, a federal prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The petition, filed on April 6, 2020, contained a 

time-sensitive request for a temporary restraining order. Id. Petitioner requested a court order 

that would prevent his transfer to a different prison upon the imminent closing of his prison of 

incarceration. Petitioner argued that his then-upcoming transfer placed him in immediate danger 

due to the possibility of contracting the COVID-19 virus at the alternate facility. Thus, on April 7, 

2020, the court ordered respondent to file a response. ECF No. 3. On April 13, 2020, respondent 

argued in opposition to petitioner’s request, claiming that this court lacks jurisdiction to compel 

Case 1:20-cv-00486-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 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

2

the prison to take the action requested by petitioner. ECF No. 4.1 Petitioner did not reply, but on 

April 15, 2020, filed a second motion for temporary restraining order. ECF No. 5. Petitioner has 

since been released from prison to home confinement.

Discussion

The standard for dismissal of a habeas petition is set forth in Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, if it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief, we must dismiss the petition. See O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th 

Cir. 1990). The “case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2, of the Constitution subsists 

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

continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank 

Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, throughout civil 

proceedings, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable 

to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 477. “[I]f it 

appears that [the court is] without power to grant the relief requested, then the case is moot.” 

Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, petitioner was released from 

prison to home confinement in May 2020.2 Accordingly, we cannot grant petitioner the relief he 

sought—an order preventing his transfer to another prison facility. Therefore, we recommend 

that his habeas petition be dismissed.

A petitioner seeking a temporary restraining order must establish that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such relief, that 

the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter 

 

1 Although respondent attempted to make a motion to dismiss in the same document, such a filing 

does not comply with the local or federal rules because it was not filed as a separate document 

under the motion event in the court’s electronic filing system. The court will not construe the 

respondent’s filing as a motion to dismiss.

2 We have reviewed the Federal Bureau of Prion’s inmate locator listing for the petitioner and 

take judicial notice of it per Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Federal Bureau of 

Prison Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (search “Find an Inmate” for “Steven 

McVay”). Petitioner is under the supervision of the Sacramento residential reentry management 

field office.

Case 1:20-cv-00486-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 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

3

v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Because petitioner has been released to 

home confinement, he cannot show that he is currently in danger of the potential harm from 

which he sought relief—exposure to the COVID-19 virus at the alternate prison facility. 

Therefore, petitioner has not made the required showing for a temporary restraining order and we 

recommend that his motion be denied.

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing § 2254 Cases requires a 

district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 

petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 

Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires 

the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of 

his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to 

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the court not issue a certificate of 

appealability.

Findings and Recommendations

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court deny petitioner’s motions for 

temporary restraining orders, ECF Nos. 1, 5, and dismiss the case. These findings and 

recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and 

recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to 

Case 1:20-cv-00486-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 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

4

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then 

review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Order

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of 

reviewing these findings and recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:20-cv-00486-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 4