Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01035/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron James Blake
Petitioner
Warden
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON JAMES BLAKE,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-01035-SKO (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

[Doc. 9]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On August 30, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (Doc. 1.) On October 30, 

2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 9.) Respondent seeks dismissal 

because Petitioner was in fact granted the relief he sought, to wit, the BOP has applied his earned 

First Step Act time credits to his sentence and he has been transferred to halfway house placement

as of October 19, 2024. Petitioner did not file an opposition. Having reviewed the pleadings, the

Court will recommend that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss

The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. 

Case 1:24-cv-01035-KES-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/13/24 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

See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to evaluate 

motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 

602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss for state 

procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). 

The Court will review the motion under Rule 4 standards. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 

12.

II. Mootness

Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal courts to deciding “cases” 

and “controversies.” To ensure that any matter presented to a federal court meets that 

requirement, the Court considers the doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness. See Poe v. 

Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 502-505 (1961). 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 (1983); NAACP, Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 

F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if “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 (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 (1971) (per 

curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). 

Petitioner alleges the BOP failed to apply his earned First Step Act time credits and place 

him in a halfway house for the remainder of his sentence. Respondent argues that Petitioner is 

ineligible for application of First Step Act credits due to his recidivism score, but he has been 

granted the relief he seeks and has been transferred to a halfway house. According to 

Respondent’s exhibits, Petitioner was transferred to a halfway house in Gillette, Wyoming, on 

October 19, 2024, with a projected release date of July 7, 2025. (Doc. 9-1 at 2, 8.) Since 

Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought, the underlying matter is moot. 

/////

/////

Case 1:24-cv-01035-KES-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/13/24 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a 

district judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 

be GRANTED. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party 

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should 

be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not 

exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 

consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), 

the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, 

when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 

fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings 

and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure 

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson 

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.2014). This recommendation is not an order that is 

immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to 

Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District 

Court's judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01035-KES-SKO Document 11 Filed 12/13/24 Page 3 of 3