01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LARRY JAY PRITZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT J. PALMQUIST,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0376-RSM

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner who has filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner was recently in federal custody for a parole violation and asserts

that he was denied credit for a period of 62 days, from January 26, 2005 to March 30, 2005.

Petitioner was released from custody on May 11, 2006. As a consequence, and as further

described below, the court concludes that his petition is moot and should be dismissed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner was convicted in approximately 1987 of the manufacture and possession of

methamphetamine and was sentenced to 21 years of imprisonment. See United States v. Pritz,

Case 2:06-cv-00376-RSM Document 13 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1

 Petitioner originally submitted the petition on March 17, 2006, but did not pay the filing

fee until April 19, 2006, and, consequently, the petition was not filed until that date.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

1989 WL 79849 (Unpublished Memorandum Disposition, 9th Cir. 1989). After being initially

released in 1996, petitioner returned to custody several times due to parole violations. Most

recently, petitioner’s parole was revoked on June 21, 2005. (Doc. #12, Ex. 1). He was released

to a halfway house on May 11, 2006 and his parole expired on May 28, 2006. (Id., Declaration

of Theresa Talplacido) (“Declaration”).

Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus on April 19, 2006. (Doc.

#7).1 Respondent filed his response on May 23, 2006. Petitioner has not filed a reply to the

response, and the petition is now ready for consideration.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner argues that respondent improperly refused to credit him for time spent in

custody between January 26, 2005 and March 30, 2005. (Doc. #7 at 3). Respondent responds that

the 62-day period was not counted towards the most recent term of petitioner’s confinement

because the warrant for the underlying parole violation was not executed until March 30, 2005.

(Declaration at 2). Respondent argues that, in any event, the petition is now moot because

petitioner’s parole has expired and furthermore, petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies.

While the record before the court does not appear to conclusively answer the question of

whether petitioner’s sentence was properly calculated, the court need not resolve this issue as the

expiration of petitioner’s parole has rendered the matter moot. Where, as here, a petitioner does

not challenged the validity of his conviction, but rather only seeks an earlier release date, the

Case 2:06-cv-00376-RSM Document 13 Filed 07/10/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -3

petition becomes moot when petitioner is released from custody. See Fendler v. U.S. Bureau of

Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that release of petitioner on parole mooted

his petition seeking earlier release date on the grounds that Parole Commission had improperly

delayed his release); Brady v. United States Parole Comm., 600 F.2d 234, 236 (9th Cir. 1979)

(same). In the instant case, as in Fendler and Brady, the only redress petitioner seeks is release

from custody, which has already occurred. Accordingly, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus

is moot.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be

dismissed as moot. A proposed Order is attached.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00376-RSM Document 13 Filed 07/10/06 Page 3 of 3