Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01190/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01190-2/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

TAYFUN KARAUZUM,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN MERLAK,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT

OBJECTIONS DUE IN 30 DAYS

ECF No. 1

Petitioner Tayfun Karauzum, a federal prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On February 24, 2020, we ordered petitioner to 

show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot. Petitioner has not responded to our 

order, and the time for doing so has passed.1 For the reasons stated below, we recommend that 

the petition be dismissed as moot.

Discussion

As stated in our order to show cause, it appears that petitioner has failed to meet the 

Constitution’s “case-or-controversy requirement,” which mandates that “parties must continue to 

have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 

 

1 On March 3, 2020, mail directed to petitioner was returned to the court as undeliverable. Under 

Local Rule 183(b), petitioner’s notice of change of address was due on May 11, 2020. Because 

petitioner has not updated his address with the court and the time for doing so has passed, his 

petition may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b).

Case 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 05/12/20 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

472, 477-78 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). To meet this requirement, 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’s sole request for relief was a change in his prison placement from 

incarceration to home confinement. ECF No. 1. Petitioner stated that his projected release date 

was December 11, 2019, see id. at 7, and the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) inmate locator indicates 

that he was released on that day.2 The relief petitioner sought—release to home confinement—

cannot be redressed by a favorable decision here. Petitioner has already been released from BOP 

custody and there are no other claims for us to address. Therefore, we recommend that the 

petition be dismissed as moot.3 

Certificate of Appealability

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

court’s dismissal 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 Section 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 

 

2

See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited 

May 12, 2020) (showing petitioner Tayfun Karauzum, inmate number 58247-053, released on 

December 11, 2019). 

3 Moreover, petitioner has failed to comply with our order to show cause and has failed to 

prosecute his case, which are additional grounds for dismissal of the petition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Case 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 05/12/20 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

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the Court decline to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

Findings and Recommendations

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court dismiss the petition and decline to 

issue a certificate of appealability. 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 thirty 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 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-HBK Document 12 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 3