Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00881/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00881-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS E. CLEARY,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 06-00881 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT

[Doc. 7]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty in the District of New Jersey to one count of distributing

pseudoephedrine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(g)(1); Exhibit 1. On June 23, 2005, Petitioner was sentenced

to 18 months incarceration, a fine of $3,000.00, 36 months of supervised release, and a penalty

assessment of $100.00. Id. If Petitioner were to serve his full term, he would be released on

April 29, 2007. Exhibit 2, page 3. As of October 12, 2006, Petitioner was scheduled to be

released on February 18, 2007, based on the good time credits he had earned and was projected to

earn in the future. Id. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 11, 2006. (Court

Doc. 1.) On September 13, 2006, the Court directed Respondent to file a response. (Court Doc.

Case 1:06-cv-00881-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 5
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 This date is called the pre-release preparation date. 

1

2

5.) On October 13, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (Court

Doc. 7.) Petitioner filed an opposition on October 23, 2006. (Court Doc. 8.) 

DISCUSSION

As Respondent submits, in 2005, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) adopted regulations that

limit the amount of time that an inmate can spend in a halfway house at the end of his sentence to

a lesser of 10% of the inmate’s total sentence or six months, unless special statutory

circumstances apply. 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20, 570.28. Respondent submits that if this criterion

were applied in the instant case, Petitioner could not be released until January 3, 2007. Exhibit 2,

page 2. Petitioner argues that the regulation is invalid and that he is entitled to evaluation for a 1

halfway house placement without consideration of its limitations. Petition, at 2. Respondent

argues that the petition should be dismissed because Petitioner had already been given the

evaluation he has requested. The Court agrees.

In his motion, Respondent states that the BOP has evaluated Petitioner “without reference

to the time constraints imposed by 28 CFR § 570.20-21 or the 2002 and 2005 Community

Corrections Policies.” Motion, at 2, Exhibit 3. As a result of this evaluation, it was

recommended that Petitioner spend 30-60 days in a RRC prior to his release. Respondent has

provided a copy of the completed form entitled regarding the Institutional Referral for CCC

Placement. See Exhibit 3, Motion. According to the form, Petitioner was evaluated on October

12, 2006, consistent with this Court’s opinions in Horn v. Ellis, Case No. 1:06-CV-0006 OWW

TAG HC and Arcediano v. Wrigley, Case No. 06-CV-00780 AWI DLB HC, which held that the

2005 BOP regulations contradict, rather than interpret, Congress’s intent in enacting 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3621(b) and 3624(c). Id. 

Because Petitioner has already been granted the relief he requested and recommended by

the Magistrate Judge, the case is now moot. 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.

Case 1:06-cv-00881-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 5
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

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). 

In his opposition, Petitioner contends that Respondent’s motion is not timely, the motion

is not verified, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Opposition, at 1-3. Contrary to

Petitioner’s contention, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is timely, as the motion to dismiss was

filed on the date it was due, October 13, 2006. The Court’s September 13, 2006, order to

respond directed that an answer to the petition be filed within thirty days from the date of service

of the order. The order was not filed and served until September 13, 2006. (Court Doc. 5.) 

Accordingly, Respondent’s motion is timely filed.

Petitioner’s contention that four exhibits attached to Respondent’s motion are not

verified, it also without merit. Specifically, Petitioner contends that Respondent did not submit

an affidavit as is required by Local Rule 43-140(a)(3). First, Petitioner is advised that Local Rule

43-140(a)(3) does not exist. However, Local Rule 43-142(a)(3) states, in part, that an affidavit

submitted in support of a motion shall (3) identify and attach documents and exhibits offered in

support of or in opposition to the motion, unless such documents and exhibits are already in the

record and specifically referred to in the motion or opposition. To the extent Petitioner is

referring to this Local Rule, it does not require that an affidavit be submitted in support of the

motion in a habeas corpus proceeding, it merely states the requirements if one need be filed. The

documents speak for themself and no further verification is necessary in this habeas proceeding,

because unlike a civil case, a habeas case does not proceed to trial. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

contention is without merit. 

Petitioner’s claim that this Court cannot take judicial notice of the exhibits, as Petitioner

disputes them, is also without merit. The Court is not required to take judicial notice of

documents submitted in support of a motion. “A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject

Case 1:06-cv-00881-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 5
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

to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of

the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). “Judicial notice is an

adjudicative device that alleviates the parties’ evidentiary duties at trial, serving as a substitute

for the conventional method of taking evidence to establish facts.” York v. American Tel. & Tel.

Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10 Cir. 1996)(internal quotations omitted); see General Elec. Capital th

Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7 Cir. 1997). Because it was not th

requested that the Court take judicial notice of the exhibits attached to Respondent’s motion, nor

is the Court required to do so, Petitioner’s contention is rejected. 

Petitioner’s contention that he is entitled to judgement as a matter of law is also without

merit. Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, Respondent has submitted evidence in form of a

memorandum setting forth the fact that the re-evaluation was conducted in consideration of the

five factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Exhibit 3, Motion. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00881-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED;

2. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT; and

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

This Findings and Recommendations is 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 Recommendations.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 1, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00881-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 12/04/06 Page 5 of 5