Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01572/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01572-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chuck Gilkey
Respondent
Jose Maria Renteria
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 This information is derived from the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and Respondent’s motion 1

to dismiss. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MARIA RENTERIA,

Petitioner,

v.

CHUCK GILKEY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1572 OWW SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT

[Doc. 18]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND1

On March 26, 2004, Petitioner pled guilty, in the Eastern District of California,

Sacramento Division, to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(6) by possessing a false

United States identification card, in June 1994 and September 1996. Petitioner also pled guilty

to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) by committing misdemeanor illegal entry in December 2000. See

United States v. Jose Maria Renteria, No. CR S 03-CR-555-3095. 

Petitioner was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment for each violation of section

1028, and a 6-month term for the section 1325 violation. The court ordered that the terms be

served consecutively for a total of 30 months.

Case 1:05-cv-01572-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/28/06 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 Due to an error in the service of that order, the order was re-served on May 16, 2006, resetting the 2

deadlines. (Court Doc. 15.) 

2

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 12, 2005, along

with a motion to appoint counsel. (Court Docs. 1, 2, 3.) By order of February 16, 2006, the

Court granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied Petitioner’s motion

for expedited disposition and appointment of counsel. (Court Doc. 8.) In that order, the Court

granted Petitioner fifteen days to file an amended petition which included his original signature. 

(Id.) On February 24, 2006, Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, along

with a second motion for the appointment of counsel. (Court Docs. 10, 11.) 

On March 8, 2006, the Court directed Respondent to submit an answer to the petition

within sixty days from the date of service. 

2

Pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed July 11, 2006. (Court

Doc. 18.)

 In the instant petition, Petitioner alleges that “[a]ccording to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1), a

federal prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of ‘more than one year’ may receive up to

54 days at the end of each year the term of imprisonment, subject to the Federal Bureau of

Prisons’ (BOP) determination that the prisoner has displayed ‘exemplary compliance with

institutional disciplinary regulations.” (Amd. Pet. at 2.) Petitioner alleges that he “was advised

by the records division at California City Correctional Institute that his 12-month sentence for the

offense committed in June 1994, did not exceed one year for the purpose of earning good time

credit under §3624(b). The record division further informed [Petitioner] that, pursuant to BOP

policy, one of [Petitioner’s] 12-month sentences could not be aggregated with his other sentences

because that 12-month term had been imposed for an offense committed before the Sentencing

Reform Act (SRA) was amended by the Prison Litigation and Reform Act, whereas the other

sentences could be aggregated because they had been imposed for conduct committed after the

PLRA amendments.” (Amd. Pet. at 2.) Petitioner argues that the BOP violated his statutory

rights by refusing to aggregate his sentences, contrary to the plain language and intent of 18

U.S.C. §§ 3584(c) and 3624(b). (Amd. Pet. at 3.)

Case 1:05-cv-01572-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/28/06 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

I. Petition is Moot

Respondent argues that the instant petition is moot because Petitioner has been released

from custody. Respondent’s argument has merit. 

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). “Some collateral consequence of the conviction must exist,

however, in order for the suit to be maintained.” Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477 (9 Cir. th

2003), cert. denied 539 U.S. 933 (2003) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).) 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). 

To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant "must have suffered some

actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70,

104 S.Ct. at 375; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1617,

1924 (1976); NAACP, Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353. 

At the time Petitioner filed the instant petition, he was housed at California City

Correctional Institution, in California City, Kern County, California. (Amd. Pet. at 2.) 

Respondent submits evidence that Petitioner was released from custody on April 5, 2006, via

good conduct time release. (Attachment 2, to Respondent’s Motion.) Petitioner was

subsequently deported. (Attachment 3, to Respondent’s Motion.) Because of Petitioner’s

release, the instant petition is moot and must be dismissed. 

When the petition for writ of habeas corpus challenges a disciplinary proceeding, like the

instant challenge to the calculation of his sentence, the petition is not moot as long as it is

possible for the Court to correct the punishment imposed as a result of the proceedings. 

However, once the petitioner is released from incarceration, the Court cannot restore any good

Case 1:05-cv-01572-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/28/06 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

time credits a prisoner may have lost or undo any other administrative punishments he may have

suffered. Nonette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875-76 (9 Cir. 2002). Further, there is no th

presumption that Petitioner will suffer collateral consequences as a result of the disciplinary

proceedings. Id. Therefore, the instant petition is moot and must be dismissed. 

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition as MOOT, is GRANTED;

2. All other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT; and

3. Judgment shall be entered; thus, terminating this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01572-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/28/06 Page 4 of 4