Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01213/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01213-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT T. BRITTON,

Petitioner,

v.

A. CORONA, et al.

Respondent.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01213-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CASE AS MOOT

ECF No. 1

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ORDER TO ASSIGN THE CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Scott T. Britton, a detainee at the Fresno County Jail without counsel, seeks a 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court for 

preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the 

judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to 

the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 

Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th 

Cir. 1998). 

A federal court has an independent duty to examine its jurisdiction, and discharging that 

duty requires the court to ensure that an actual controversy exists at every stage of litigation. See 

Bd. of Trs. of Glazing Health & Welfare Tr. v. Chambers, 903 F.3d 829, 838 (9th Cir. 2018); 

Case 1:18-cv-01213-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 02/07/20 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

Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2013). An actual controversy cannot 

exist when a case has become moot. See M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 842, 857 (9th Cir. 

2014). A case becomes moot when a court cannot grant “any effectual relief.” Rocky Mountain 

Farmers Union v. Corey, 913 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 2019).

Here, the petitioner challenged his sentence alone and sought no other forms of relief. 

ECF No. 1 at 3. However, the petition indicated that petitioner had fully served his sentence and 

was scheduled for release in August 2018. Id. at 2. Because it did not appear that this court could 

grant petitioner any effective relief, we ordered petitioner to show cause why the court should not 

dismiss this case as moot. ECF No. 5. On October 7, 2019, the service of that order, mailed to 

Fresno County Jail, was returned undeliverable with the indication that petitioner was no longer 

in custody. Under Local Rule 183(b), petitioner had 63 days to update his address, or until 

December 16, 2019.

1

 Petitioner has failed to update his address and has not responded to the 

order to show cause. Therefore, we find that the petition is moot and recommend dismissal. 

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases 

requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order 

adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 

1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). The court should issue a certificate of appealability “if jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 

correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, reasonable 

jurists would not find our conclusion debatable or conclude that petitioner should proceed further. 

Thus, the court should decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

 

1 Failure to update the court with a change of address within 63 days may result in the case being 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b).

Case 1:18-cv-01213-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 02/07/20 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

Order

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge who will review the 

findings and recommendations.

Findings and Recommendations

We recommend that the court dismiss the petition as moot. ECF No. 1. These findings 

and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over this case 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States 

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 

recommendations, any party may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will then review the 

findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:18-cv-01213-DAD-JDP Document 7 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 3