Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01196/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241st Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

18cv1196

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN DEUAUGHN-HOBBY,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM GORE, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-1196-BAS-AGS

ORDER:

(1)GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

PETITION

[ECF No. 14];

(2)DISMISSING PETITION

[ECF No. 1];

AND

(3)DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Pro se Petitioner Calvin Deuaughn-Hobby filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 5, 2018, seeking to challenge his extradition 

from New York to California. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner avers that his due process right to 

a habeas corpus proceeding was violated because he “was never given a chance to file a 

writ of habeas corpus in state court” in New York. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner indicates that he 

requested a habeas proceeding “[o]n January 25, 2018 in Monroe County Court City of 

Rochester state of New York,” but did not receive such a proceeding and was “delivered 

up to the demanding state[.]” (Id. at 4, 5.) This Court instructed the California Attorney 

General to show cause why the Petition should not be granted. (ECF No. 6.) The Attorney 

Case 3:18-cv-01196-BAS-AGS Document 17 Filed 10/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1196

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

General has moved to dismiss the Petition as moot given Petitioner’s extradition to 

California. (ECF No. 14.) Petitioner has filed a letter with the Court, which the Court has 

construed as a response to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 16.) For the reasons herein, 

the Court grants the motion to dismiss, dismisses the Petition, and declines to issue a 

certificate of appealability.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks relief for the alleged violation of his due process rights caused by 

New York’s extradition procedure. As is evident from the Petition, Petitioner was 

extradited from New York to California and is no longer in New York state custody. (See 

generally ECF No. 1.) As the Attorney General notes, Petitioner is currently in custody 

pending trial for first degree murder and his bail for release from custody has been set at 

some $2 million. (ECF No. 14-1 Exs. A, B.) The Attorney General argues that the Petition 

must therefore be dismissed as moot. The Court agrees that the Petition must be dismissed.

Pursuant to Article III, federal court jurisdiction extends only to actual cases or 

controversies. Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70–71 (1983). The case 

or controversy requirement prevents a federal court from deciding “questions that cannot 

affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 

494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). A petition for writ of habeas 

corpus becomes moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy. Wilson v. Terhune, 

319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). “Mootness is jurisdictional.” Burnett v. Lampert, 432 

F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005). When a federal court cannot redress a party’s actual 

injury with a favorable judicial decision, the case is moot and must be dismissed. Spencer 

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 

Because Petitioner had already been extradited to California at the time he filed his 

Petition, the Petition never presented a live controversy for this Court. “Once [a] fugitive 

is returned to the demanding state, the right to challenge extradition becomes moot: the 

fugitive is no longer being detained by the asylum state, and so, the legality of his or her 

detention there is no longer at issue.” Barton v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1298 (6th Cir. 

Case 3:18-cv-01196-BAS-AGS Document 17 Filed 10/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1196

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

1997); Harden v. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289, 1298–99 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that, while 

habeas relief is mooted by the extradition, a civil rights action against the asylum state’s 

officers who effected the extradition could proceed); Perez v. Mims, No. 1:16-cv-01935-

DAD-SKO HC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33406, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017) (dismissing 

habeas petition challenge to an order of extradition as moot when petitioner was extradited 

to face murder charges in foreign jurisdiction); Thurston v. State, No. 13-cv-00256-

DKW/BMK, 2013 WL 2637827, at *3 (D. Haw. June 12, 2013) (dismissing as moot 

challenge to extradition when petitioner had already been extradited to demanding state). 

Therefore, Petitioner’s challenge to New York state extradition procedures must be

dismissed for lack of a justiciable controversy.

Although Petitioner contends that probable cause was lacking to support his 

extradition to California (ECF No. 16), “invalid extradition” is not “a sufficient ground 

upon which to grant habeas relief once the fugitive is present in the jurisdiction from which 

he fled.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Hudson v. 

Moran, 760 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 1985); Siegel v. Edwards, 566 F.2d 958, 960 (5th 

Cir. 1978) (per curiam)). The record shows that Petitioner has been charged with crimes 

in California and is being processed accordingly. If Petitioner wishes to challenge his 

criminal charges or any convictions, he must do so first in the California state courts and 

only after exhausting his state court remedies may he pursue federal habeas related to those 

convictions. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; see also Thurston, 2013 WL 2637827, at *3. 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 

14.) The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Petition. The Court DECLINES

to issue a certificate of appealability because the Court does not find that reasonable jurists 

would find the Court’s conclusion debatable or wrong. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, foll. Rule 11(a). The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 10, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01196-BAS-AGS Document 17 Filed 10/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3