T h e H on or abl e T i mot h y M

. B u r g es s, D i st ri ct J u dg e f or t h e U

. S. * D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f A la sk a , sit ting b y d e sig n a tio n
.

F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

P ER R Y A DR ON M C C UL L OUGH ,

Petitioner-Appellant ,

v. C ONR AD M. G RABE R , Warden,

Respondent-

Appellee

. No. 11-16920

D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00465- F RZ
ORDER AND AMENDED OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of Arizona Fr ank R. Z apata , Senior District J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted F e br ua ry 15 , 2 01 3— San F ra

nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia
Filed Ma y 10, 2013 Amended July

11, 2013
B e fo re : Jer ome F arris a

nd N. Rand y Smith, Cir c uit

Judg e s, and Timothy

M. Bur g ess, District J udg e. * Op ini on by Judg e B ur g e ssM C C UL L OUGH V
. G RABE R

2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y **

Hab e as Co r pus The pa nel amende d its opini on, filed on May 10, 2013.
In the amende d opinion, the panel dismis s ed as m oot a 28 U.S.C. § 2 2 4 1 habea s corpus pe tition requesting rec onsideration of the Bur eau of Prisons’ reje ction of pe tit ion e r’ s app lic atio n to the Se c on d Ch anc e Ac t’ s e lde rl y offe nder pilot program, whic h no longe r exists . The Sec ond Cha nc e Ac t of

20 07 a llo we d the Bure a

u to re mov e e lig ibl e elder ly offe nders f

rom a B urea

u fac ility and plac e t h em on ho me de te nti on . T he pa ne l he ld t hat pe tit ion e r’ s a

pp e a l is moot because the relief requested in his habea s petition is no longe r ava ilable.

CO UN SEL
Thomas S . Har

tzell, Tucson, Arizona, for the PetitionerAp pe lla nt.
Br uce M. Fe rg (ar gued), Assistant U .S. Attorne y ; C h ri stina M. Cabanillas, Appellate Chief; J ohn S. L eonar do, United Stat es At torney , United States Attorney s’ Off ice, Tuc son, Arizona, for Responde nt-Appellee

.M C C UL L OUGH V
. G RABE R 3
OR DE R The opinion filed on May 10, 2013, is h ere by AM EN DE D. An

Am e nd e d O pin ion

is f ile d c on c urrent ly with this order. No petit ion for re hearing or rehe aringen banc was filed within the origina l time period, and that time pe riod has now expired. No subsequent pe titions for re h ea ringor re hearing en banc shall be filed.

OP IN ION
BU RGESS, Dis trict J udg e: Perry A. McCullough br oug ht a habe as petition reque sting rec onsideration of the Bur eau of Prisons’ rejec tion of his app lic atio n to the Se c on d Ch anc e Ac t’ s e lde rl y offe nders pilot pro g ram, which no longe r ex ists. The district court, c onsideringthe merits of the c ase, denied McCullough’ s habea s petition. W e lac k jurisdiction over the instant appea l beca

use it is moot.
I. F acts and P roce dural Hi story
In J uly 1990, McCullough wa s conv i ct edby a jury of drugtraff

ickingoffe nses and se ntence d to 380 months imprisonment. On April 9, 2008, the Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L . No. 110-199 (the “SCA”) wa s signe d into law. The SCA included the “[e]lderly and family reunific ation for cer tain nonviolent offende rs pilo t program,” which allowe d BO P to remove “e ligible e lderly offe nders” from a B OP faci l i t y an d place them on home detention. See 42 U. S.C.M C C UL L OUGH V
. G RABE R

4 § 17541(g )(1) . T h er e ar e seve ral re quirements to qualify as an “e ligible e lderly

offe nder,” including that the offe nder be at least 65 year s of age , servinga non-life sentenc e fora nonvio le n t an d n o n - s e x o f

f e n s e c r im e , an d “ h a s s e r v e d the g reater of 10 year s or 75 per cent of the term of imprisonment to which the off

ender was sente nced.” Id. at § 17541(g )(5)

. McCullough a

pplied to the elder ly

offe nder pilot program in ear ly 2009 , ca l culating that, if B OP considere d his good tim e c re dit s, he wou ld b e e lig ibl e fo r t he pil ot p ro g ra

m in Marc h 2010. BO P declined to consider McCullough’ s g ood tim e c re dit s a

nd de nie d M c Cul lough ’s re qu e st, fi nd inghim ineligible f

or the pilot program be causehe would not have serve d 75 p er ce nt of his sentence until March 2013. McCullough inter

nally appea led B OP’s decision, exhausting his administrative remedie s. McCullough pe titioned pro se for ha beas relief

i n the Un ite d Stat e s Dist

ri c t Cour t for the Di str ic t of Ar izon a . In h is petition, McCullough’s singular re quest conc erne dBO P’s c a lc ulatio n of whe the r h e ha d s e rv e d 7 5 p e rc e nt o f h is sentenc e. See Petition, M c Cu llo ug h v
. G raber (No. 10-c v46 5- F RZ ) (

No . 1 ) ( “ Pe tit ion e r i s n ot c ha lle ng inghis conviction or his sentenc e. He is merely ch al l en g ing the manner in which that sentenc e is b eingadministered by the BO P.”). On F ebrua

ry 8, 2011, a mag istrate jud ge i s sued a repor t and re commendation (“ R&R”) , sug g estingthe district cou rt deny

McCullough’ s petition for two rea sons: (1) McCullough’ s elig ibilit y

for the pilot progra

m was within the sound discreti o n o f B OP; and (2) Mc Cullough wa s not e lig ibl e fo r t

he pil ot p ro g ra

m, a s B OP c or

re c tly de c lin e d to consider g ood time cre dits in calculatingelig ibilit y . In the R&R, the mag istrate judg e n o ted that she a g ree d with the rea soning in I

z z o v
. W ile y , 6 20 F.3d 1257, 1260 ( 10th Cir.M C C UL L OUGH V
. G RABE R 5

2010), in which the T en t h Circuit concluded that, under a plain languag e ana ly sis of 42 U.S.C. § 17541 , BO P is not re qu ir e d to c on sid e r g oo d ti me c re dit s in e va luatin ge lig ibi lity for the e lderly

offe nder pilo t p ro g ram. The district court adopted the R& R.
Meanwhile, in September 2010, the elder ly offe nder pilot prog ra m w a s d is con ti nu ed. Nev erthel ess , M cC ul lo ugh ti me ly appea led the district cour t’s order

. On appe al, McCullough a rgues that B OP miscalculated his tim e se rv e d b y

re fu sin gto t ake int o a c c ount h is g oo d ti me cred its. M c Cul lou g h f ur the r a rgue s th at hi s c la im i s dis tin guis ha

ble fr om Iz

zo , beca use McCulloug h was convicted prior to enactment of the Prisoner L itigation Re fo rm Ac t ( “ PL RA ” ), wh ic h a ffects the wa y g oo d ti me cre dits vest. McCullough ac knowledges the termination of the pil ot p ro g ra

m, b ut s ug g e sts that w e sh ou ld ne ve rt he le ss order BO P to reca lculate his sentenc e an d consider pla cing him in home detention. The g overnme nt responds that McCullough’ s appea l is moot beca use the pilot program wa s dis c ontin ue d, and tha t hi s c la im a lso fa il s on th e me ri ts beca use elig ibilit y

for the pilot program i s wi t hin BOP’s disc r e ti o n , an d

b e c a u s e Co n g r e s s d id

n o t i n te n d

th at B OP consider g ood time cre dits in i ts analy sis of elig ibilit y for the pilot progr am. II. Stand ard of Review
This c ourt

re vie ws de novo a d is tric t c o urt’ s d e nial of a petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus. Se rra to v . Cl ar k, 486 F.3d 560, 565 (9th Cir. 2007).M C C UL L OUGH V
. G RABE R

6

M c C u llo u g h m a k e s this a rg u m e n t i n his in iti a l pro s e b rie fing , b u t i t 1 is no t r a is e d in c o u n se l’s sup p le m e n ta l b rie fing . A fter o ra l ar g u m e n t, M cCul l ough pro s e f

i l ed t wo addi t i onal l et t er s t hat al s o, i n par t , addres s ed this issu e
. See D k t s , 45, 48. B ec au s e M cCu l l o ug h i s r epr es en t ed by
cou n s el , w e dec l i n e t o con s i der t h e l et t er s f i l ed on M ar ch 11 a n d 25, 2013.
See U

. S.C

. S. § 2 2 5 4 , R ul e 2 , requi ri ng t hat a p et i t i o n “ specif y al l t he 2 gr ounds f

or r el i ef a va i l ab l e t o t he pet i t i oner , ” a s wel l as “ t he r el i ef
r eques t ed. ” III
. Di sc uss ion
A fe dera l court lac ks jurisdiction unless there is a “ca se or controve rsy” under

Article I I Iof the Constituti on. Pu b. Ut il. Comm’n of the State of Cal. v. Fe d. Energy R eg. Comm’n , 10 0 F .3 d 14 51 , 14 58 (9 th Cir

. 19 96 ). Th is c ontr ov e rs y mus t e xist at a ll s ta g e s of th e pr oc e e din g s, inc lud inga pp e llate revie w, “a

nd not simply at t he date the ac tion is i nitiated.” Id

. I f a c ourt is unable to re nder “ eff ective r elief,” it lacks jurisdiction and must dism iss the appea l. Id .; Muj ahid v. Da nie ls , 4 13 F .3 d 9 91 , 9 95 (9 th Ci r. 20 05 ) ( “ An a pp e a l is moot ‘when, by

virtue of a

n int er v en ing e vent, a c ourt of appea ls cannot grant a

ny eff ectua l r elief whateve r in favor of th e ap p el l an t

. ’” ) ( ci t i n g Cal de ron v. Moo re , 518 U.S. 149 (1996))

. The g overnme nt argues that McCull o u gh ’s appe al is moot beca use the pilot program to which he applied w as terminate d in September 2010. McCullough argues t hat his appea l is not mo o t b e c a

u s e B O P r e ta in s th e d is c r e ti o n to p la ce him on home detention or in a

residential r eentry center (“ RRC ”). 1 We n ote that Mc Cul lou g h’ s h a be a s p e tit ion di d n ot r e qu e st thi s r e lie f –

his pe tit ion o nl y re qu e ste d r e e va luatio n o f h is elig ibilit y for the pilot program, taking into a ccount his good t i m e c r e d i t s. See Petition, McCullough v. Grabe r (No. 10- 2M C C UL L OUGH V
. G RABE R 7

c v- 46 5- F RZ ) (

No

. 1)

. Af

te r te rm inatio n of the pil ot p ro g ra m, McCullough did not amend his pe tition.
We conclude t h at M cCullough’ s appea l is moot . The re li ef r e qu e ste d in

his ha be a s p e tit ion

is n o lo ng e r a

va ila ble beca use of the termination of the pilot prog ram. Se eAb da la v
. I m m ig ra ti o n a n d

Na tu ra li z a ti o n S e rv. , 4 88 F.3d 1061, 1062–65 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissing as moot habe as petition a ft e r pe tit ion e r’ s de po rt atio n wh e re pe tit ion “ c ha lle ng e d o nly the leng th of his detention, as distin gu i shed fr om the lawfulne ss of the deportation order ”). Due to termination of the pilot prog ram, “ chang es in the circ umsta n ce s that preva iled at the beg inning of litiga t ion have f

orestalled a

ny occa sion f

or meaning ful relief.” Ga tor.c om Cor p. v . L. L. Bean, Inc

. , 398 F.3d 1125, 1129 ( 9 t h Cir. 2005) (en ba nc) (interna l quotation marks o m i tted). Althoug h we have rec og nized numerous exceptions to the mootness doctrine, none applies here. See Ctr. For Biological Diversity v . Lohn , 511 F.3d 960, 964–65 (9th Cir. 2007) (de scribingexceptions to t he moo tne ss d oc tr ine ); Sierra Club F o u n d. v. De

p’t of Transp. , 563 F.3d 897, 898 ( 9th Cir. 2009) (appe al moot and did no t f a ll i nto “ y e t e va din gre vie w” e xce pti on to m oo tne ss; c ourt ne e d n ot c on sid e r a

pp e a l of a no tic e of int e nt t o c re ate a program that lost its funding to e x ist whe re an y future program would “ prese nt differ ent questions”); Se rra to , 486 F.3d at 565 (appe al not moot because al though ha beas pe tit ion e r w a s re le a se d fr om pr iso n, a pp e a l “s[o ught] r e lie f i n the form of

reduc tion of [petit ioner’s] supervised r elea se”) ; Mu jah id, 413 F.3d at 994–95 (same ). Ac cording ly , we dismiss McCullough’ s appea l as moot.
DISMISSE D.