Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00194/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00194-1/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

ALFREDO CHAVEZ )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________ )

1:07-cv-00194-AWI WMW HC

ORDER DECLINING TO

ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AND

GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. 4, 5]

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a petition

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

On May 9, 2007, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations in this

case, recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted and Respondent be

ordered to consider the appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to an RRC in light of the

factors set forth in § 3621(b), not excluding any other factors deemed appropriate by the

BOP, without reference to the BOP policy promulgated in December 2002 and without

reference to the BOP’s February 14, 2005, amendment to 28 C.F.R. § 570.21. Petitioner did

not respond to these findings and recommendations.

On June 5, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. In his

motion, Respondent argues, and provides supporting evidence to show, that Petitioner has

received the relief he has requested. Petitioner has not opposed or otherwise responded to the

motion to dismiss.

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution

Case 1:07-cv-00194-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 12/07/07 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

deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler,

464 U.S. 67, 70 104 S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (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, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183 (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, 92 S.Ct. 402, 406 (1971) per curiam, quoting

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-464 (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, 104 S.Ct. at 375; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct.

1617, 1924 (1976); NAACP, Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.

The court finds that in this case, the petition for writ of habeas corpus has become

moot because Petitioner has received the relief he requested. Accordingly, the petition must

be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations entered by the

Magistrate Judge on May 9, 2007;

2) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

3) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and 

4) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00194-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 2