Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00677/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00677-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AVID LEE KENNEDY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ALBERTO GONZALEZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00677-AWI-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT

(Doc. 1)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed his petition on June 2, 2006, claiming that he was being held illegally by

the U.S. Parole Commission, which had unlawfully detained him and had refused to grant him

release on parole. (Doc. 1). On June 5, 2005, the Court mailed to Petitioner the standard

package of new case documents. (Doc. 3). On July 6, 2006, these documents were returned as

“undeliverable” with an indication that Petitioner was out of custody. (Doc. 6). 

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 “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 (1982). The Court has

no power to decide cases that do not affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. Defunis

v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-528 (9th Cir.

1996). “To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant must have suffered

some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Iron Arrow, 464 U.S.

at 70; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976); NAACP, Western

Case 1:06-cv-00677-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.

In the instant petition filed June 2, 2006, Petitioner challenges the U. S. Parole

Commission’s decision to place him in custody on a detainer after his release on a previous

conviction and the Commission’s failure now to release him on parole. (Doc. 1, p. 4). On June

5, 2006, the Court mailed to Petitioner the standard new case documents (Doc. 3); however,

these documents were returned to the Court as “undeliverable,” and with an indication that

Petitioner was “out of custody.” (Doc. 6). The Court has determined from the Bureau of

Prison’s own database that Petitioner was released from custody on September 29, 2006. Since

Petitioner’s only ground for relief concerned his release from custody, and since that relief has

now been afforded to him, there is no further relief that this Court can provide in these habeas

proceedings. Accordingly, the action is moot and should be dismissed. Murphy v. Hunt, 455

U.S. at 481; Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as MOOT. This Report and Recommendation is

submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 twenty (20) 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

Recommendations.” 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: April 13, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00677-AWI-TAG Document 7 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2