Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01910/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01910-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael L. Benov
Respondent
Juan Francisco Ortiz Guereca
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN FRANCISCO ORTIZ 

GUERECA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL L. BENOV,

Respondent.

1:12-cv-01910 MJS HC 

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED AS MOOT 

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition challenges the calculation of

Petitioner’s release date.

Respondent has responded to the petition. On August 30, 2013, the Court 

ordered Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. In response, 

Respondent explained that Petitioner had been released from prison to immigration 

authorities on May 12, 2013, and is no longer in custody of the Bureau of Prisons. 

As Respondent filed an answer to the petition after Petitioner had been released 

and there indicated Petitioner was still in custody, the Court ordered Respondent to 

show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Case 1:12-cv-01910-MJS Document 15 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 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

2

11(b)(3). Respondent filed a satisfactory response to the order on October 11, 2013.

Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide cases that are moot because the courts’ 

constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or controversies. Iron Arrow Honor 

Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70-71 (1983). Article III requires a case or controversy 

in which a litigant has a personal stake in the outcome of the suit throughout all stages of 

federal judicial proceedings and has suffered some actual injury that can be redressed 

by a favorable judicial decision. Id. A petition for writ of habeas corpus becomes moot 

when it no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution. 

Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). A petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is moot where a petitioner’s claim for relief cannot be redressed by a favorable 

decision of the court issuing a writ of habeas corpus. Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 

1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). Mootness is 

jurisdictional. See Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 

(9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a moot petition must be dismissed because nothing remains 

before the Court to be remedied. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. at 18.

A case becomes moot because of the absence of an actual case or controversy 

where the petitioner no longer suffers or anticipates an injury traceable to the respondent 

which is likely to be redressed by a judicial decision. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. at 11. 

Although a habeas claim for credit on a sentence may be mooted by the petitioner’s 

release, it is also possible that the claim remains viable. For example, a habeas 

challenge to a term of imprisonment is not mooted by a petitioner’s release where the 

petitioner remains on supervised release and there is a possibility that the petitioner 

could receive a reduction in his term of supervised release. Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 

F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010). In Reynolds, it was held that a proceeding pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a decision of the BOP denying the petitioner’s request for 

credit towards his federal sentence for days spent in state custody was not moot where 

the petitioner was released and remained on supervised release, and the BOP’s internal, 

favorable decision did not recalculate the petitioner’s release date as the petitioner had 

Case 1:12-cv-01910-MJS Document 15 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 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

3

requested.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, 

Petitioner shall show cause why the Court should not dismiss the petition for mootness. 

If Petitioner files a response to this order, Respondent may file a reply to Petitioner’s 

response no later than ten (10) days after the date of service of Petitioner’s response on 

Respondent. Petitioner is instructed that a failure to comply with this order may itself be 

considered a basis for imposing sanctions against Petitioner pursuant to Local Rule 110, 

and will result in dismissal of the petition.

Furthermore, the order to show cause regarding sanctions against Respondent is 

discharged. Respondent is admonished that a failure to accurately check and report the 

state of custody of inmates in these proceedings can, as it did here, result in the Court 

devoting significant time unnecessarily to the case. This Court, one of the busiest in the 

nation, cannot afford an unnecessary expenditure of its time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

92b0h

Case 1:12-cv-01910-MJS Document 15 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 3