Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02228/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02228-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
Lloyd Wayne Gamble Jr.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lloyd Wayne Gamble Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Craig Apker, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2228-PHX-ROS (BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

While confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Arizona,

Petitioner Lloyd Wayne Gamble, Jr., filed a “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For A

Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In Federal Custody” (Doc. No. 1) After the

Petition was served and an answer was filed by Respondents, Petitioner filed a Motion

for Leave to Amend the Petition. (Doc. No. 15.) The amended petition requested that

time he spent in jail be credited towards his federal sentence. On June 16, 2008, the

Court granted Petitioner’s motion to amend and called for an answer from Respondents.

(Doc. No. 15.) On May 1, 2009, Respondents filed a “Notice Of Change In Petitioner’s

Custody Status” notifying the Court that on April 2, 2009, Petitioner was released from

federal custody pursuant to a Good Conduct Time Release, and asserting that the

petition is now moot. (Doc. No. 29.) 

The Magistrate Judge finds that the Petition is moot. Mr. Gamble’s petition for

habeas corpus merely challenges determinations that delayed his release date, and

because he has already been released from custody, no purpose would be served in

reaching the merits of his argument. He is not attacking his underlying conviction, and

thus this case is distinguishable from decisions rejecting a claim of mootness because

Case 2:07-cv-02228-ROS Document 30 Filed 05/19/09 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 - 2 -

a petitioner faces continuing negative consequences as a result of a defective

conviction, see Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 391 n.4 (1985); and he faces no collateral

consequences from a decision to dismiss the habeas, see Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S.

624, 632 & n.13 (1982). Because Petitioner has challenged only the calculation of his

release date, and he has been released, the petition is moot and should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Petition Under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In Federal Custody be

DENIED.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

within ten days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A

party may respond to another party’s objection within ten days after being served with

a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). If objections are filed the parties should use the

following case number: CV 07-2228-PHX-ROX

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties’ right to de novo review by the

District Court may be deemed waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

DATED this 19th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02228-ROS Document 30 Filed 05/19/09 Page 2 of 2