Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00046/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00046-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco M. Sanchez
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO M. SANCHEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00046 AWI NEW HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #6]

ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING

PETITION

[Doc. #7]

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 March 6, 2007, the undersigned issued an order granting petition and ordering

Respondent 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. 

However, on March 1, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot,

because Respondent had already 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

Case 1:07-cv-00046-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 03/22/07 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

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 8, 2007. 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 “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 Order Granting the Petition dated March 6, 2007, is VACATED;

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: March 22, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00046-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2