IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ABELARDO NEGRETTE-MEDINA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MARION FEATHER, 

Respondent. 

ABELARDO NEGRETTE-MEDINA 

81178-179 

FCI Sheridan 

P.O. Box 5000 

Sheridan, OR 97378 

Petitioner Pro Se 

S. AMANDA MARSHALL 

United States Attorney 

NATALIE K. WIGHT 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue 

Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -

Civil No. 3:14-cv-oo~qt-Ac 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 3:14-cv-00992-AC Document 15 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 5
ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge. 

Petitioner, an inmate at FCI Sheridan, brings this habeas 

corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that 

follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be DENIED AS 

MOOT. 

Petitioner is serving a 120-month term of imprisonment for 

his conviction in the Southern District of Texas on charges of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 212.2 kilograms of 

cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 212.2 kilograms 

of cocaine. Petitioner's current projected release date is April 

21, 2016. 

On August 6, 2014, Petitioner filed his § 2241 habeas corpus 

petition challenging the procedural validity of disciplinary 

sanctions imposed on Petitioner while he was housed by the Bureau 

of Prisons ("BOP") at Reeves County Detention Center, a private 

contract facility located in Pecos, Texas. Petitioner alleges the 

discipline investigation and disciplinary sanctions are invalid 

because the investigation and subsequent hearing should have been 

conducted, and sanctions imposed, by BOP-employed staff, not 

contract Reeves County employees. By way of relief, Petitioner 

seeks reinstatement of 27 days of Good Conduct Time which was 

revoked as a disciplinary sanction. 

On September 30, 2014, BOP Disciplinary Hearing Administrator 

Christopher Cruz expunged the Incident Report at issue. As a 

2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -

Case 3:14-cv-00992-AC Document 15 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 5
result; the disciplinary hearing and sanctions have also been 

reversed and expunged. Petitioner's discipline record no longer 

reflects the incident or the resulting disciplinary findings and 

sanctions. Further, Petitioner's 27 days of Good Conduct Time has 

been restored. 

The case or controversy provision of Article III, § 2 of the 

Constitution "subsists through all stages of federal judicial 

proceedings, trial and appellate The parties must 

continue to have a 'personal stake in the outcome' of the 

lawsuit." Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis 

v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-478 (1955)). This 

means that, throughout the litigation, Petitioner "must have 

suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the 

[Respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial 

decision." Id. (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). Whether a case 

does not meet the case-or-controversy requirements of Article III, 

and is thus moot, is a question of federal law upon which the 

federal court "must pronounce final judgment." Liner v. Jafco, 

375 U.S. 301, 304 (1964) (citing Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32 

(1924)). 

A claim which is rendered moot may, nonetheless, survive 

dismissal if it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." 

Spencer, 523 U.S. at 17. Such a claim, however, is only 

3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -

Case 3:14-cv-00992-AC Document 15 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 5
recognized in "exceptional situations." City of Los Angeles v. 

Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983). Two criteria must be fulfilled: 

(1) the action which the claim challenges must be "in its duration 

too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or 

expiration," and (2) there must be a "reasonable expectation" that 

"the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action 

again." Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975). " 

"Reasonable expectation" does not refer to a "mere physical or 

theoretical possibility," but to a "demonstrated probability." 

Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982). 

As noted, Petitioner's disciplinary record was expunged and 

his Good Conduct Time was restored. As such, Petitioner's habeas 

corpus claim is moot, as no legal injury remains for this court to 

remedy. Moreover, Petitioner presents no evidence that he will be 

subjected to the challenged action again. Accordingly, habeas 

corpus relief should be denied. 

RECOMMENDATION 

For these reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

should be DENIED and judgment of dismissal should be entered. 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

The above Findings and Recommendation are referred to a 

United States District Judge for review. Objections, if any, are 

4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION -

Case 3:14-cv-00992-AC Document 15 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 5
due February 10, 2015. If no objections are filed, review of the 

Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement that date. 

A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 

days after the objections are filed. If objections are filed, 

review of the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement 

upon receipt of the response, or on the latest date for filing a 

response. 

DATED _ 1;;,1/c/ 

this {..djg_ day of Ja~u~J. , 2015·~· 

(_JX r/1Q 

Jo n V. Acosta 

Un'ted States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-00992-AC Document 15 Filed 01/26/15 Page 5 of 5