Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01866/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01866-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conrad Graber
Respondent
Jesus Reyes
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jesus Reyes,

Petitioner

-vsConrad Graber,

Respondent.

CV-14-1866-PHX-DJH (JFM)

Report & Recommendation 

on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

Petitioner, presently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institute at Phoenix, 

Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on 

August 21, 2014 (Doc. 1). On October 6, 2014 Respondents filed their Response (Doc. 

12) arguing the Petition is moot. Petitioner has not replied.

The Petitioner's Petition is now ripe for consideration. Accordingly, the 

undersigned makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and recommendation 

pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,1 Rule 72(b), Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.2(a)(2), Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner is an inmate of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), detained at the Federal 

Correctional Institute in Phoenix, Arizona (“FCI-Phoenix”). (Petition, Doc. 1 at 4; 

Response, Doc. 12 at 1.) Petitioner filed the instant petition challenging the denial of his 

 

1 Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases permits the Court to apply those 

rules to habeas corpus petitions not arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. No other specific 

rules apply to petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Accordingly, the undesigned applies 

those rules to the instant Petition as provided herein.

Case 2:14-cv-01866-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 5
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

request to participate in BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”) to permit 

him early release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). (Petition, Doc. 1 at 4.) As relief, 

Petitioner requests an order directing “the BOP to reconsider Petitioner for early release 

eligibility.” (Petition, Doc. 1 at 9.) 

Petitioner relies upon 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), 28 C.F.R. § 550.55 and Arrington v. 

Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008). Section 3621(3) provides for a substance abuse 

treatment program in the federal prisons, and as incentive to prisoners to participate, the 

statute permits BOP to reduce the time in custody for up to a year for inmates convicted 

of “nonviolent offenses” who successfully complete a treatment program. 18 U.S.C. § 

3621(e). That statute is effected through 28 C.F.R. § 550.55, which mandates successful 

completion of BOP’s RDAP. For a time, BOP had categorically excluded from the 

program those prisoners convicted of offenses involving the carrying, possession, or use 

of firearms, even if the offense was “nonviolent.” In Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 

(9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that exclusion to be invalid. 

In his Memorandum in Support, Petitioner argues that he had previously been 

incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California, where the RDAP 

was not offered because it was a high security facility. In October, 2011, Petitioner was 

transferred to FCI-Phoenix, where the RDAP is available. Petitioner applied to 

participate, but was advised the he was ineligible because of his possession of a firearm 

in connection with a narcotics charge. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the 

determination.

On October 6, 2014, Respondent filed his Response to Writ of Habeas Corpus and 

Request to Dismiss as Moot (“Response”), arguing that the Petition had been rendered 

moot because as of October 3, 2014 the BOP had deemed Petitioner eligible for early 

release consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), contingent upon his successful 

completion of the RDAP. Respondent provides a declaration under penalty of perjury 

from a BOP attorney at the “Designation and Sentence Computation Center,” declaring 

that Petitioner’s file had been reviewed and he had been deemed eligible for participation 

Case 2:14-cv-01866-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 5
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

in the early release program. (Response, Doc. 12, Exhibit A.) 

In the service Order, the Court directed that “Petitioner may file a reply within 30 

days from the date of service of the answer.” (Order 9/17/14, Doc. 5 at 3.) Petitioner 

has not filed a reply. 

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

Respondents urge that the case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction because the controversy has been rendered moot by the BOP’s decision to 

make Petitioner eligible to participate in the RDAP.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution gives the courts 

of the United States power over specified “Cases...[and] Controversies.” 

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate 

only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. To invoke the

jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be 

threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and 

likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Article III 

denies federal courts the power “to decide questions that cannot 

affect the rights of litigants in the case before them,” and confines 

them to resolving “ ‘real and substantial controvers[ies] admitting of 

specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as 

distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon 

a hypothetical state of facts.’”

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (citations omitted). “If an 

event occurs that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and 

must be dismissed.” Am. Rivers v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 

(9th Cir. 1997), as amended (Sept. 16, 1997). In particular, where a complainant has 

already obtained the relief he sought, the claim is moot. Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 

746 (9th Cir. 2003). These principles equally apply in a habeas petition. See Spencer v. 

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998). 

Here, Petitioner sought an order directing “BOP to reconsider Petitioner for early 

release eligibility.” (Petition, Doc. 1 at 9.) He has been reconsidered for such eligibility, 

and “deemed eligible for early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e).” (Response, Doc. 12, 

Exhibit A, Ferril Declaration at ¶ 2.) Thus, Petitioner has already obtained the relief he 

Case 2:14-cv-01866-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 5
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

sought, and the case is moot.

It is true that there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine for: (1) controversies 

“capable of repetition, yet evading review,” see Spencer, 523 U.S. at 17; and (2) cases 

involving “collateral consequences” which continue after the removal of the primary

basis for relief (e.g. collateral consequences to a conviction that continue after release 

from prison), see Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968). However, Petitioner does not 

argue that either exception applies, and the undersigned divines no basis for such 

exceptions to apply. 

Thus it appears that this case has been rendered moot, this Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction, and the case should be dismissed. “A dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction [for mootness] is plainly not a determination of the merits of a claim. 

Ordinarily, such a dismissal is ‘without prejudice.’ ” Korvettes, Inc. v. Brous 617 F.2d 

1021, 1024 (3rd Cir. 1980). Accordingly, this case should be dismissed without 

prejudice.

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires that in habeas cases the 

"district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 

adverse to the applicant." However, such certificates are only required in cases 

concerning detention arising Aout of process issued by a State court@, or in a proceeding 

under 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 attacking a federal criminal judgment or sentence. 28 U.S.C. '

2253(c)(1). This case arises under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241, and does not attack a State court 

detention. Accordingly, no ruling on a certificate of appealability is required, and no 

recommendation thereon will be offered.

V. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus, filed August 21, 2014 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

Case 2:14-cv-01866-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/28/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

PREJUDICE.

VI. EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties 

shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See also Rule 8(b), Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any 

findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a 

party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute a waiver of a party's 

right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant 

to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-

47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated: January 27, 2015

14-1866r RR 15 01 27 on HC.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01866-DJH Document 13 Filed 01/28/15 Page 5 of 5