Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00183/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00183-0/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 (Federal)

---

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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PAUL WILLIAM DRIGGERS 

Petitioner, 

vs.

LOUIS WINN, WARDEN, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0183-TUC-DCB (BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, Paul William Driggers, who is confined in the Federal Correctional

Institution-Tucson, filed a Petition for A Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal

Custody Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”)on March 31, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.)

Petitioner raised four grounds for relief in the Petition. 

Petitioner raises four grounds for relief in the Petition:

(1) Petitioner is punished and wrongfully deprived of good time credits, in

violation of his due process rights, because he has a disability which

prevents him from providing a urine sample within a 2-hour time limit;

(2) Petitioner was wrongfully deprived of good time credits and privileges;

(3) Petitioner is wrongfully punished because he cannot provide a urine

sample or “pay a debt” to BOP; and

(4) Petitioner has been wrongfully designated as a “prior use” inmate, in

violation of his constitutional rights.

Petitioner seeks restoration of his good time credits, to have his name taken off the

“Prior Use” list, and to be randomly selected for drug testing like other inmates. The

Case 4:09-cv-00183-DCB Document 11 Filed 09/01/09 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 -

District Court issued its initial screening order, dismissing Ground Three as repetitive,

and calling for an answer from Respondents on Grounds One, Two, and Four of the

Petition. (Doc. No. 3.)

On July 15, 2007, Respondents filed an answer explaining that, on June 9, 2009,

Warden Winn took Petitioner off the suspect list for drug testing. (Doc. No. 9.)

Additionally, on June 22, 2009, Discipline Hearing Officer Petricka conducted a rehearing of Petitioner’s incident report from FCI, Florence, Colorado for Refusing to

Provide a Urine Sample and found that, based on Petitioner’s Generalized Anxiety

Disorder, it appears his refusal to provide a urine sample was not intentional. Based on

this evidence, DHO Petricka expunged the incident report and restored the 41 days of

Good Conduct Time which had previously been forfeited as a result of that incident

report. (Answer, at 2-3.) Finally, a plan is in place to accommodate Petitioner’s

anxiety disorder in the event he is randomly selected to provide a urine sample,

allowing Petitioner extra time in a dry cell if needed.. 

Respondent concludes that these corrective steps appear to address all three of

Petitioner’s requests for relief contained in his Petition. Respondents therefore request

that the Court dismiss the petition as moot. 

Petitioner agrees with Respondent’s request that this case be dismissed, and

agrees that he has been granted the relief requested. A case becomes moot when "it no

longer present[s] a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution."

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Although Petitioner suggests that the Court

consider retaining ancillary jurisdiction until the expiration of Petitioner’s term of

incarceration, in the event Petitioner is transferred to another facility, or new

supervisors or hires are unfamiliar with Petitioner’s issue. A court must have

jurisdiction over a case or controversy before it may assert jurisdiction over ancillary

claims. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 355 (1996)(citations omitted). Because

Case 4:09-cv-00183-DCB Document 11 Filed 09/01/09 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 -

the Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be dismissed as moot, the Court would

have no jurisdiction to assert over any ancillary claim. 

Accordingly, 

This Court recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No.

1) be DISMISSED. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

within ten days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A

party may respond to another party's objections within ten days after being served with

a copy thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). If objections are filed the parties should use the

following case number: CIV 09-0183-TUC-DCB.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2009.

Case 4:09-cv-00183-DCB Document 11 Filed 09/01/09 Page 3 of 3