Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04757/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04757-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BOP
Respondent
Jamie Fields
Petitioner
W.Z. Jenkins
Respondent
United States
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMIE FIELDS,

Petitioner,

v.

W.Z. JENKINS,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-04757-HSG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 

AS MOOT; DENYING MOTION FOR

JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION AS 

MOOT

Re: Dkt. No. 3

On August 7, 2018, petitioner filed the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 

challenging the execution of his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders both 

parties to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed as moot.

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2017, petitioner was convicted in the District of Colorado for violations of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), Prohibited Person (Felon) in Possession of a Firearm, in 

United States v. Fields, 16-cr-00204-REB-02 (D. Colo.). Dkt. No. 11 at 6; Dkt. No. 11-2 at 25. 

That same day, petitioner received a 30-month sentence which began to run on that date. Id. 

After being sentenced, petitioner was housed at Federal Correctional Institution, Dublin (“FCIDublin”), from May 19, 2017 to October 26, 2018. Dkt. No. 11 at 6; Dkt. No. 11-1 at 2. On 

August 7, 2018, while housed at FCI-Dublin, petitioner filed the instant petition challenging the 

calculation of her release date. Dkt. No. 1. On October 16, 2018, petitioner was released to a 

residential re-entry center (“RRC”) in Utah. Id. On October 23, 2018, the Court ordered 

respondent to show cause why petitioner should not be entitled to a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. Dkt. No. 9. On December 11, 2018, respondent filed an answer to the order to show 

cause. Dkt. No. 11. Petitioner did not file a traverse. Petitioner was released from custody on 

Case 4:18-cv-04757-HSG Document 12 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

April 24, 2019. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Website, Inmate Locator, Registration No. 43669-

013, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited on Dec. 1, 2019).

DISCUSSION

I. Petition

In her petition, petitioner claims that: (1) the BOP has improperly delayed her placement 

date in a community residential reentry center in violation of applicable federal law and 

regulations; (2) the BOP has failed to modify her sentence to account for “good conduct” credits; 

and (3) the BOP has miscalculated her “prior custody” credits. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Petitioner

alleged that she should have been released to the halfway house by April 24, 2018 at the latest, and 

April 14, 2017 at the earliest. Id. Petitioner requests that she receive her good conduct and prior 

custody credits and that she be immediately released. Dkt. No. 1 at 6-8.

II. Mootness

For a federal court to have jurisdiction over an action, Article III, Section 2, of the 

Constitution requires the existence of a “case” or “controversy” through all stages of federal 

judicial proceedings. U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2; Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 

2005) (“Mootness is jurisdictional”). This means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff 

“must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to 

be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 

477 (1990). A case becomes moot “when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 

outcome.” Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 623 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, a habeas petition is moot where the 

petitioner “seeks relief [that] cannot be redressed by a favorable decision of the court issuing a 

writ of habeas corpus.” Burnett, 432 F.3d at 1000-01 (internal quotation marks and ellipses 

omitted) (holding that habeas petitioner’s challenge to deferrals of his parole release date was 

rendered moot by his release). Here, petitioner’s habeas petition does not challenge the validity of 

her conviction but rather challenges the execution of her sentence, specifically the computation of 

her sentence. See Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner was released from custody on April 24, 2019. The 

habeas petition is moot unless petitioner is currently suffering collateral consequences from the 

Case 4:18-cv-04757-HSG Document 12 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sentence. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (“Once the convict’s sentence has expired, . 

. . some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole – some 

‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction – must exist if the suit is to be maintained.”) (internal 

citation omitted); see also Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007) (“where the 

grounds for habeas relief will not redress collateral consequences, a habeas petition does not 

continue to present a live controversy once the petitioner is released from custody.”); Serrato v. 

Clark, 486 F.3d 560, 565 (9th Cir. 2007) (appeal not moot where petitioner serving term of 

supervised release seeks reduction in term of supervised release); United States v. Verdin, 243 

F.3d 1174,1178-79 (9th Cir. 2001) (case not moot because although petitioner had been released 

from custody, he was in first year of three-year supervised release; if he prevailed, could be 

sentenced to shorter period of supervised release); but cf. McCullough v. Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 

1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding petition moot where federal prisoner sought to have BOP reevaluate 

his eligibility for placement in early release program that had been terminated and petitioner had 

not sought different relief, such as determination of eligibility for a different early release 

program). 

Because it is unclear from the record if petitioner is currently suffering collateral 

consequences from her sentence, the Court orders the parties to, within twenty-eight (28) days 

from the date of this order, show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot.

III. Motion for Judicial Recommendation

Petitioner has filed a motion for judicial recommendation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), 

requesting that the Court modify her sentencing term and account for her pretrial detention credits 

and good conduct credits, which would result in her immediate release. Dkt. No. 3. Petitioner has 

been released from custody. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as moot. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders as follows.

1. Petitioner’s motion for judicial recommendation (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED AS 

MOOT.

2. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, the parties are ordered to 

Case 4:18-cv-04757-HSG Document 12 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot. 

This order terminates Dkt. No. 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/21/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-04757-HSG Document 12 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 4