Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00978-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Smith
Respondent
Shaun Tillotson
Petitioner

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

SHAUN TILLOTSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DAVID SMITH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00978 LJO SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #11]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

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. 

On July 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Petitioner

was sentenced to serve sixty (60) months imprisonment on January 9, 2004; he has a projected

release date of May 10, 2008. Petitioner claims the BOP is unlawfully denying him consideration for

placement into a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”). On October 23, 2006, Respondent filed an

answer to the petition. Petitioner filed a traverse on November 1, 2006. 

On April 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment. However, on March 1,

2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot, because Respondent has conducted

the inquiry Petitioner requested as relief in his petition. In his motion, Respondent states, “The BOP

has evaluated petitioner ‘without reference to the time constraints imposed by 28 CFR § 570.20-21

Case 1:06-cv-00978-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 05/08/07 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 cd 2

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

“120-150 days in a Residential Re-entry Center before his release.” Id. As proof, Respondent has

provided a copy of the completed form entitled, “Institutional Referral for CCC Placement.” See

Exhibit 3, Motion.

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). 

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;

3. Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00978-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2