Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00925/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00925-0/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

---

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

ANDREW JOSEPH MADI,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, USP-ATWATER,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00925-SKO (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

[Doc. 10]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On August 9, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (Doc. 1.) On November 6, 

2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 10.) Respondent seeks dismissal 

because Petitioner was granted the relief he sought, to wit, the BOP has deemed him eligible to 

earn and apply First Step Act time credits to his sentence. Petitioner did not file an opposition. 

Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court will recommend that Respondent’s motion to dismiss

be GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss

The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. 

Case 1:24-cv-00925-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 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

2

See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to evaluate 

motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 

602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss for state 

procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). 

The Court will review the motion under Rule 4 standards. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 

12.

II. Mootness

Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal courts to deciding “cases” 

and “controversies.” To ensure that any matter presented to a federal court meets that 

requirement, the Court considers the doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness. See Poe v. 

Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 502-505 (1961). 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); NAACP, Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 

F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if “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 Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the 

rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per 

curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). 

Petitioner alleges the BOP wrongfully deemed him ineligible to earn First Step Act 

(“FSA”) time credits. According to the exhibits submitted by Respondent, upon receipt of the 

petition, BOP Agency Counsel reviewed Petitioner’s records and determined that Petitioner 

should in fact be deemed eligible to earn FSA credits. (Doc. 10-1 at 3.) The exhibits further show 

that the records were corrected as of October 10, 2024, to reflect Petitioner is FSA eligible and 

has earned 365 days of FSA credits with a new projected release date of April 5, 2031. (Doc. 10-1 

at 6.) Since Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought, the underlying matter is moot. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a 

district judge to this case.

Case 1:24-cv-00925-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 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

3

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 

be GRANTED. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party 

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should 

be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not 

exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 

consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), 

the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, 

when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 

fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings 

and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure 

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson 

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.2014). 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00925-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 3