Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00223/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00223-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keshishyan Hovannes
Petitioner
Dennis Smith
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KESHISHYAN HOVANNES,

Petitioner,

v.

DENNIS SMITH,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00223 OWW DLB HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

[Doc. 6]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 9, 2007. On

May 2, 2007, the Court issued Findings and Recommendation recommending that the petition be

granted and Respondent be ordered to consider the appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to

an RRC in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), 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. 

On June 6, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. In his

motion, Respondent states and submits evidence that on May 23, 2007, Petitioner was transferred

to a halfway house. (See Declaration of Bobbi Butler, at ¶ 2.) 

Because Petitioner has already been granted the relief he requested, the case is now moot. 

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the Court

Case 1:07-cv-00223-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 07/09/07 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

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). 

ORDER

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: July 6, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00223-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 2