Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00989/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00989-1/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

TONY MINH TRIHN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-0989-OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 4]

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. Pending before the court is

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

At the time he filed his petition, Petitioner was in custody of the Bureau of Prisons

Case 1:06-cv-00989-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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

(“BOP”) at the Federal Prison Camp located in Atwater, California, pursuant to a judgment

of the United States District Court.

On July 31, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus

in this court. Petitioner claimed that the BOP was unlawfully denying him consideration for

placement into a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”). 

On January 25, 2007, Respondent filed the pending motion to dismiss. Petitioner has

not opposed the motion.

DISCUSSION

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal

prisoner can show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner’s claims are proper under 28 U.S.C. §

2241 and not 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because they concern the manner, location, or conditions of

the execution of petitioner’s sentence and not the fact of petitioner’s conviction or sentence.

Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that a challenge to the execution

of a sentence is "maintainable only in a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241"); Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 549 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam)

(allowing a federal prisoner to use § 2241 to challenge the BOP's restitution policies).

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

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

Case 1:06-cv-00989-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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

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.

In this case, Respondent provides evidence that Petitioner was transferred to a

halfway house on December 27, 2006. Respondent argues that Petitioner having received the

relief he sought, this petition has been rendered moot. Petitioner has not opposed the motion

to dismiss, and so has not demonstrate that some collateral, ongoing consequence would

result without habeas relief. See Spencer v. Kemma, 523 U.S. 1, 14 (1998). Accordingly,

the court concludes that because the BOP has given Petitioner the relief he sought, this

petition has become moot.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED 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 close this case and enter judgment for

Respondent. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00989-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

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 17, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00989-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 04/17/07 Page 4 of 4