Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06509/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06509-1/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

LEON CLARK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-6509 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 14]

Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

filed April 17, 2006. Petitioner has not opposed the motion.

Petitioner asks the court to remedy the following alleged instances of mistreatment:

1. indefinite detention in the Special Housing Unit;

2. faulty disciplinary sanctions imposed on Petitioner between September 2003 and July

Case 1:04-cv-06509-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 08/04/06 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

2004;

3. failure to provide medical care for Petitioner after he was assaulted by correctional

officers; and

4. failure to place him in a halfway house before his release.

The petition also asks the court to:

1. declare various Bureau of Prisons programs unconstitutional;

2. order the warden and others to cease their “gladitorial programs amonst [sic] the

prisoners and using the petitioner and other inmates for financial gain and political

gaines [sic];” and

3. order the expunction of all his incident reports.

Respondent now brings a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Petitioner’s claims

are not properly brought within a Section 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus and that the

petition is now moot because Petitioner was released from custody on July 1, 2005.

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, 70 104 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.

Case 1:04-cv-06509-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 08/04/06 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

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is rendered moot when the petitioner is released

from custody, unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that some collateral, ongoing

consequence would result without habeas relief. See Spencer v. Kemma, 523 U.S. 1, 14

(1998). Here, no such collateral consequence is demonstrated. As Respondent argues, the

disciplinary actions Petitioner describes do not fall within the mootness exception for drug

use or any other recognized exception. See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9

th Cir.

1997)(holding that if a petitioner challenges the validity of his underlying conviction, the

collateral consequences of that conviction may be sufficient to overcome mootness despite

his subsequent release from prison, and discussing various collateral consequences). 

Accordingly, the court finds that this petition has been rendered moot. In light of this

conclusion, the court finds it unnecessary to address Respondent’s other contention.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s

motion to dismiss be GRANTED and 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 (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).

Case 1:04-cv-06509-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 08/04/06 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06509-AWI-WMW Document 15 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 4