Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01476/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01476-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glenn Pellman Shoemaker
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

GLENN PELLMAN SHOEMAKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-CV-01476 AWI LJO HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. #5]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

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 31, 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 November 15, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot.

Case 1:06-cv-01476-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 11/29/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Respondent contends he has already conducted the inquiry recommended by the Magistrate 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 “60-90 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 November 1, 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 “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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as moot; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01476-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2