Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01810/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01810-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Khine Nyan Tun
Petitioner
Rafael Zuniga
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHINE NYAN TUN,

Petitioner,

v.

RAFAEL ZUNIGA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01810 MJS (HC)

ORDER REGARDING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. 21]

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. The parties have

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 4, 8.)

Pending before the Court is Respondent's February 26, 2015 motion to dismiss the 

petition as moot. (ECF No. 21.) Petitioner did not file a response to the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a federal inmate, was formerly housed at Taft Correctional Institution 

("TCI"). He challenges the disallowance of twenty-seven (27) days of good conduct time 

credit that he suffered as a result of a prison disciplinary finding made at TCI on or about 

April 19, 2013. Petitioner was engaged in prohibited conduct, namely fighting with other 

inmates. (Pet., Ex. 2.) Petitioner challenges the loss of time credits and seeks 

Case 1:14-cv-01810-MJS Document 22 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 4
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

invalidation of the sanctions. Petitioner claims that because the disciplinary hearing 

officer (DHO) was not an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and thus 

lacked the authority to conduct the disciplinary hearings and make findings resulting in 

punishment, including disallowance of good time credit, Petitioner suffered a violation of 

his right to due process of law. (Id. at 3.)

Respondent moves for dismissal of the petition as moot because the disciplinary 

charges were reheard on July 24, 2014, by a certified disciplinary hearing officer of the 

BOP. At the rehearing, the BOP DHO found that Petitioner had committed the prohibited

act of fighting. Petitioner was again sanctioned with a loss of twenty-seven (27) days of 

good conduct time credits and two months of disciplinary segregation. (Carol Cole Decl., 

Attachs. 1-3, ECF No. 21-1.)

II. MOOTNESS

Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide cases that are moot because the courts' 

constitutional authority extends to only actual cases or controversies. Iron Arrow Honor 

Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70-71, 104 S. Ct. 373, 78 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1983). Article III 

requires a case or controversy in which a litigant has a personal stake in the outcome of 

the suit throughout all stages of federal judicial proceedings and has suffered some 

actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Id. A petition for writ 

of habeas corpus becomes moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under

Article III, § 2 of the Constitution. Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). 

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot where a petitioner's claim for relief cannot be 

redressed by a favorable decision of the court issuing a writ of habeas corpus. Burnett v. 

Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 

7, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1998)). Mootness is jurisdictional. See, Cole v. 

Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a 

moot petition must be dismissed because nothing remains before the Court to be 

remedied. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43.

Here, documentation submitted by Respondent in support of the motion to 

Case 1:14-cv-01810-MJS Document 22 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 4
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

dismiss demonstrates that the claim initially alleged by Petitioner is no longer in 

controversy. The charge was reheard by an officer who had the precise qualifications 

that Petitioner had alleged were required by principles of due process of law and the 

pertinent regulations. It is undisputed that the findings and sanctions that constituted the 

object of Petitioner's challenge in the petition have now been superseded by the findings 

and sanctions of the certified BOP DHO.

When, because of intervening events, a court cannot give any effectual relief in 

favor of the petitioner, the proceeding should be dismissed as moot. Calderon v. Moore, 

518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S. Ct. 2066, 135 L. Ed. 2d 453 (1996). In the present case, it 

appears that the only relief that Petitioner sought was invalidation of the findings and 

associated sanctions. It has been demonstrated that the rehearing of the incident report 

by an indisputably qualified DHO has effectuated the relief sought by Petitioner. Thus, it 

is no longer possible for this Court to issue a decision redressing the injury.

In summary, Petitioner has not asserted any factual or legal basis that would 

preclude a finding of mootness. The Court thus concludes that the matter is moot 

because the Court may no longer grant any effective relief. See, Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 

573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that a habeas claim was moot where a former inmate 

sought placement in a community treatment center but was subsequently released on 

parole and no longer sought such a transfer); Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 

2010) (dismissing as moot a petition seeking early release where the petitioner was 

released and where there was no live, justiciable question on which the parties 

disagreed).

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the petition as moot is granted.

III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

"The plain language of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c)(1) does not require a petitioner to 

obtain a [certificate of appealability] in order to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition." 

Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008). "Nor is there any other statutory 

basis for imposing a [certificate of appealability] requirement on legitimate § 2241 

Case 1:14-cv-01810-MJS Document 22 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

petitions. Although state prisoners proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a [certificate of 

appealability], see § 2253(c)(1)(A), there is no parallel requirement for federal prisoners." 

Id.

Accordingly, because Petitioner is a federal prisoner bringing a legitimate § 2241 

petition, a certificate of appealability is not required.

IV. ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED;

2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot; and 

3) The Clerk be DIRECTED to close the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01810-MJS Document 22 Filed 04/08/15 Page 4 of 4