Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00260/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00260-0/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

THOMAS CAROL ROYAL, II,

Petitioner,

v.

R. ZUNIGA, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00260-LJO-BAM HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT 

DISMISS THE PETITION AS MOOT

(Doc. 9) 

Petitioner Thomas Carol Royal, II, is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner claimed that the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons ("BOP") failed to credit him for time served after the offense date for a Maryland state 

conviction that has since been invalidated. Petitioner sought an order directing the BOP to apply the 

credit for time served. On May 1, 2015, Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as moot since 

BOP has applied the credit and released Petitioner from custody. Petitioner did not reply to the 

motion.

The undersigned has reviewed the documentation submitted by Respondent in support of the 

motion and finds it to be supported by evidence establishing resolution of Petition's claim and his 

release from federal custody on March 20, 2015. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that

Court dismiss as moot the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Case 1:15-cv-00260-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/26/15 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

I. Procedural and Factual Background

On January 8, 2009, Maryland State Police arrested Petitioner after they found him in 

possession of a firearm during a traffic stop. As a result, the State of Maryland charged Petitioner 

with state weapons violations, which it later dropped, and revoked Petitioner's probation for a prior 

assault conviction, imposing the 34-month term of incarceration that had been suspended during 

probation.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland convicted Petitioner of possession of 

ammunition by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and sentenced him to 188-months in prison. The 

district court later amended the sentence to 84 months' imprisonment. Petitioner remained in 

primary state custody, serving the remaining term of the state assault conviction, until his state 

sentence ended on October 25, 2010. The United States Marshal then moved Petitioner to federal 

custody.

On May 14, 2014, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals determined that Petitioner's guilty 

plea was not knowing and voluntary, and reversed the state assault conviction. Petitioner filed the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on February 12, 2015, on the ground that the 

invalidation of the state assault conviction entitled him to federal sentence credit for the entire time 

spent in state custody after January 8, 2009. Thereafter, BOP verified the invalidation of the assault 

conviction and amended Petitioner's release date to March 20, 2015. Petitioner was then released.

II. Petition Is Moot

Since Article III of the Constitution extends federal court jurisdiction only to actual cases and 

controversies, courts lack jurisdiction to decide issues or cases that are moot. Iron Arrow Honor 

Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70-71 (1983). A case or controversy exists only when a litigant has 

a personal stake in the outcome through all stages of the federal judicial proceedings and an actual 

injury that can be addressed by a favorable judicial decision. Id. A petition for a writ of habeas 

Case 1:15-cv-00260-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/26/15 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

corpus is moot when the petitioner's claim for relief cannot be redressed by the court's granting the 

petition. Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005). A court must dismiss a moot 

petition because nothing remains before the court for resolution. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 

(1998).

The habeas petition in this case sought only application of the time served in Maryland state 

prison to Petitioner's federal sentence. Because the BOP has applied the sentence credit, recalculated 

Petitioner's release date, and released him from custody, no case or controversy remains. The 

petition should be dismissed as moot.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss the petition in this case as moot.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, 

United States District Court Judge, 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 thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, either party 

may file written objections with the Court, serving a copy on the opposing parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation

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: June 26, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00260-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 3