Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01069/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01069-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Molina-Montoya
Petitioner
Jeff Wrigley
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO MOLINA-MONTOYA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 06-1069 OWW DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #8]

ORDER DISMISSING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AS MOOT

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT

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 October 23, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be GRANTED and Respondent be ORDERED to consider the

appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to an Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”) in light of

the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), not excluding any other factors deemed appropriate

by the Bureau of Prisons (“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. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within ten (10) days of the date of service of the order. 

On October 31, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot.

Respondent contends he has already conducted the inquiry recommended by the Magistrate

Case 1:06-cv-01069-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 12/08/06 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

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 “90-120" 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 October 16, 2006,

consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Id.

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 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 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is DISMISSED 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: December 7, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01069-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 2