Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01028/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01028-2/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

DAVID M. CHAN,

Petitioner,

v.

D. SMITH,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 06-1028 AWI DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 7, 2006. In his

petition, Petitioner argued that he was entitled to be considered for transfer to a halfway house

and that the Bureau of Prisons refused to consider his request for a transfer. On November 8,

2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to grant the petition and

ordered that Respondent consider the appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to an RRC in

light of the factors set forth in § 3621(b), not excluding any other factors deemed appropriate by

the BOP, without reference to the BOP policy promulgated in December 2002 and without

reference to the BOP’s February 14, 2005, amendment to 28 C.F.R. § 570.21. 

On February 5, 2007, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition as moot. 

In his motion, Respondent submits evidence that Petitioner was released via full term release on

October 26, 2006 (see Declaration Bobbi Butler, at ¶ 2) and the instant petition is therefore moot

Case 1:06-cv-01028-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 05/18/07 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

2

and should be dismissed. Respondent’s motion was filed over thirty days ago, and Petitioner

has not filed an opposition or otherwise disputed the facts as alleged by Respondent.

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.

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). 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

2. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01028-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2