Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00822-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL T. JOHNSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

)

 JEFF WRIGLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-0822-AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 8]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending

before the court is Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss this petition.

In his petition filed June 27, 2006 , Petitioner contends that the Bureau of Prisons

(“BOP”) by regulation refuses to assess him under 18 U.S.C. Section 3621(b) to determine if

he is eligible for six months of pre-release placement at a Community Corrections Center. 

Petitioner contends that such refusal to assess him as required under 18 U.S.C. Section

Case 1:06-cv-00822-LJO-WMW Document 9 Filed 01/31/07 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

3621(b) is a violation of federal law and amounts to an unlawful execution of his sentence. 

Petitioner asks the court to order the BOP to in good faith assess Petitioner based on the

criteria in 18 U.S.C. Section 3621(b), without reference to BOP policy promulgated in

December 2002 and without reference to 28 C.F.R. Section 570.21.

On October 31, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground

that it is moot. Specifically, Respondent states that as of October 27, 2006, Petitioner was

scheduled to be released on January 6, 2007, based on the good time credits he had earned

and was projected to earn in the future. Respondent states that the BOP has evaluated

Petitioner “without reference to the time constraints imposed by CFR § 570.21-21 or the

2002 and 2005 Community Corrections Policies.” That evaluation resulted in a

recommendation that Petitioner spend 30 -60 days in a Residential Re-entry Center before

his release. Petitioner has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion to dismiss.

Based on the information provided by Respondent in his motion to dismiss, the court

finds that this petition has become moot. Accordingly, the court hereby recommends as

follows:

1) that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED;

2) that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot;

3) that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close

this case.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

Case 1:06-cv-00822-LJO-WMW Document 9 Filed 01/31/07 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

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

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

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00822-LJO-WMW Document 9 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 3