Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00189/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00189-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco A. Rodriguez
Petitioner
Dennis Smith
Respondent

Document Text:

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 cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO A. RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DENNIS SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00189 OWW SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #6]

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 is currently in custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal Prison

Camp in Atwater, California, pursuant to a judgment of the United States District Court. Petitioner

was sentenced to serve twenty-one (21) months imprisonment on April 5, 2006; he has a projected

release date of August 19, 2007.

On February 5, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in

this Court. Petitioner claims the BOP is unlawfully denying him consideration for placement into a

Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”). 

On March 16, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation which

recommended the petition be granted and Respondent be ordered to consider the appropriateness of

Case 1:07-cv-00189-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 06/06/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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 April 11, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. Respondent

contends he has conducted the inquiry recommended by the Magistrate Judge consistent with the

Magistrate Judge’s findings. Respondent states, “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.’” See Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter “Motion”). As a result of

this evaluation, the BOP has determined Petitioner is to spend “30-60 days in a Residential Re-entry

Center before his release.” Id. Respondent has provided a copy of the completed form entitled,

“Institutional Referral for CCC Placement.” See Exhibit 3, Motion. According to the form, Petitioner

was evaluated on February 23, 2007. Id.

Because Petitioner has already been granted the relief he requested, 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). 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00189-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 06/06/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as moot; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00189-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 3