Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06506/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06506-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

MARIO A. RENTERIA, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 04-6506 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 13]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the finding of a prison disciplinary hearing

officer. 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 motion to

dismiss filed May 5, 2006.

In support of his motion to dismiss, Respondent contends that this case has become moot. 

Specifically, Respondent asserts that Petitioner was released from custody on November 11,

2005, through Good Conduct Time Release. Respondent provides the declaration of Natalie

Wight, Bureau of Prisons Attorney–Advisor, who states that the records of Petitioner indicate

that he was released on that date. The court further notes that an order served on Petitioner on

February 14, 2006, was returned by the United States Postal Service with the notation, “not at

Case 1:04-cv-06506-AWI-WMW Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 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

this address.”

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 (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). 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 Region, 743 F.2d at 1353. Although a prisoner

who has completed his sentence can challenge his conviction in habeas corpus because of the

collateral consequences that survive his release, there is no indication of such collateral

consequences stemming from administrative punishments imposed while a prisoner is

incarcerated. Once a prisoner has been released, the court cannot restore any good time credits

he may have lost. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S.1, 14 - 16 (1998); Nonette v. Small, 316 F.3d

872, 875-76 (9th Cir. 2002).

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition be

dismissed as moot.

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 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

Case 1:04-cv-06506-AWI-WMW Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 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

(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: May 25, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06506-AWI-WMW Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3