Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00006-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW D. HORN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

BERNIE ELLIS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00006-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RETENTION

OF CASE

(Doc. 7)

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 14, 2005, Petitioner filed his petition in the Eastern District of Washington. 

On January 3, 2006, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. 

(Doc. 1). On March 8, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to expedite the briefing schedule because the

claim raised in the petition concerned the date on which Petitioner should be released from prison to

a Community Corrections Center (“CCC”). (Doc. 6). Also on March 8, 2006, Petitioner filed a

motion requesting that the District Judge retain and decide the case in lieu of the regularly-assigned

Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 7). The basis for Petitioner’s motion was his allegation that “the magistrate

judge has failed to act on [Petitioner’s] request for an expedited briefing schedule and if no action is

taken in a timely matter [sic] his case will become moot because he will have been released from

custody without the benefit of a hearing.” (Id. at p. 1). 

On March 30, 2006, the District Judge assigned to this case issued an order setting an

expedited briefing schedule, thus implicitly granting Petitioner the relief he requested in both his

motion to expedite the briefing schedule and his motion for the District Judge to retain the case. 

Case 1:06-cv-00006-LJO -TAG Document 21 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 2
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

(Doc. 8). Following submission of the briefs, the District Court, on April 21, 2006, issued a ruling

on the instant petition in which the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the writ of habeas

corpus should not be granted. (Doc. 13, p. 15). In that order, the District Court granted Petitioner

the relief requested in his petition, i.e., that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) re-evaluate whether

Petitioner should be transferred to a CCC facility for more than the forty-three days previously

calculated and that the BOP undertake this re-evaluation without reference to the BOP’s policies and

regulations that Petitioner challenged as illegal. (Id.). 

On May 9, 2006, Respondent filed its response, alleging that the petition was now moot

because, as of May 5, 2006, the BOP had conducted the ordered re-evaluation on and had recalculated the time for Petitioner’s transfer from prison to CCC at forty-seven days. (Doc. 16, p. 3;

pp. 7-8). Subsequently, on October 14, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss based on

Respondent’s assertion that Respondent has complied with the Court’s orders by re-evaluating and

re-determining the date on which Petitioner should be released to Community Corrections without

reference to the Bureau of Prison’s regulations regarding release to Community Corrections.

In effect, therefore, the relief requested in the instant Petition has been granted by the District

Court. Because the instant motion sought to have the District Judge retain the case for decision, and

because the District Judge did in fact retain the case until he issued a ruling on the petition,

Petitioner’s motion is now moot and will be denied as such.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion to have the District

Judge retain the case (Doc. 7), is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00006-LJO -TAG Document 21 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 2