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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kristen Theresa Morris,

Petitioner,

v. 

USA,

Respondent.

No. CV-18-00065-TUC-CKJ

 CR-16-01686-TUC-CKJ (LAB)

 ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or 

Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 3). 

The government has filed a response, (Doc. 16) and Petitioner has filed a reply. (Doc. 17).

Background

On September 7, 2016, Kristen Theresa Morris was charged with one count of 

Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute approximately 64.86 kilograms of 

Marijuana and one count of Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. Morris pleaded guilty to the Conspiracy count

on September 7, 2017, with her plea agreement providing a guideline range of sentencing 

between 21 to 27 months. On December 19, 2017, This Court sentenced Morris to a twentyone (21) month term of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release.

On February 8, 2018, Morris filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and filed an 

amended motion on February 16, 2018. The government filed its response on November

Case 4:18-cv-00065-CKJ Document 22 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 4
- 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

7, 2018, and Morris filed a reply on November 19, 2018. Morris filed a notice continuing 

this action on September 12, 2019.

Morris was released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons on May 3, 2019. (Doc. 18).

She successfully completed her term of supervised release on July 10, 2020. (Cr. Doc. 

150).1

Mootness

Morris makes it clear — in her motion, amended motion, and reply — she seeks to 

challenge her sentencing rather than her conviction. (Doc. 1, pg. 14); (Doc. 3, pg. 17); 

(Doc. 17, pg. 1). However, the Court declines to address these arguments, because her 

sentence has been fully served, making her request moot. United States v. Palomba, 182 

F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). 

A question is moot when it no longer presents “a case or controversy under Article 

III, § 2, of the Constitution.” See, e.g., Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998). This 

requires the parties to continue having a stake in the outcome of the case throughout “all 

stages of federal judicial proceedings” and the plaintiff must be able to obtain redress from 

a favorable judicial decision. United States v. Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(quoting Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7). The burden is met while the plaintiff is incarcerated or

even on supervised probation. Id. In Verdin, the court found a potential one-year reduction 

of supervised probation sufficient. Id.

However, when a sentence has completely run its course, leaving nothing to be 

undone, there must be continuing “collateral consequences.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8. Upon 

challenging a conviction, the presumption of collateral consequences is permissible, due to 

“the obvious fact of life that most criminal convictions do in fact entail adverse collateral 

legal consequences.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55 (1968). Yet, as Spencer instructs,

this is not the case for other challenges, where the petitioner bears the burden. Spencer, 523 

U.S. at 12. The Spencer Court required the petitioner to “identify specific, concrete”

consequences to satisfy this requirement for a parole revocation. Id. at 9. In building off 

1 Citations to the underlying criminal docket in this case are abbreviated “(Cr. Doc._)”.

Case 4:18-cv-00065-CKJ Document 22 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 4
- 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

requirements from other standing contexts, the Court demanded more than a hypothetical 

injury, in this case enhanced consequences due to future lawbreaking. Id. at 13 (citing Lane 

v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632-633 (1982).). In fact, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted this 

to mean any review of completed sentences over these hypothetical future consequences is 

“no longer good law.” United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999).

The heightened requirement has been extended to challenges against supervised 

release revocation denials, United States v. King, 891 F.3d 868, 872 (9th Cir. 2018), as well 

as a variety of sentence challenges. See United States v. Garcia-Gastelum, 735 F. App'x 

412 (9th Cir. 2018) (Challenge for a variance deemed moot); United States v. Mendoza, 

745 F. App'x 692 (9th Cir. 2018) (Challenge regarding reasonableness of a sentence 

deemed moot); United States v. Cota-Chavez, 698 F. App'x 484 (9th Cir. 2017) (Challenge 

regarding denial of a role reduction deemed moot); United States v. VeVea, 446 F. App'x 

63, 67 (9th Cir. 2011) (Challenge to probation conditions deemed moot). “Mootness, 

however it may have come about, simply deprives us of our power to act,” making even 

well-intended investigation or corrective actions improper. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 18.

Morris is no longer incarcerated or on supervised release. Her sentence is over, and 

as in Spencer, there are no collateral consequences. Morris successfully completed her 

sentence, including her supervised release term, and is no longer under the jurisdiction of 

this court.

Certificate of Appealability (“COA”)

Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, 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.” Such certificates are required in cases 

concerning detention arising “out 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). Here, the Petition is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This Court must 

determine, therefore, if a COA shall issue.

Case 4:18-cv-00065-CKJ Document 22 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 4
- 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

The standard for issuing a COA is whether the applicant has “made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district 

court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 

2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would 

find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). “When the 

district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's 

underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that 

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 

the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. In the certificate, the Court must 

indicate which specific issues satisfy the showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

The Court finds that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the 

Petition stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and the Court finds that 

jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

procedural ruling. A COA shall not issue as to Morris’ claims.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Morris’ Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or 

Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (CV 18-00065, Doc. 3; CR 16-01686-

001, Doc. 140) is DENIED.

2. Cause No. CV 18-00065 is DISMISSED

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in 

Cause No. CV 18-00065.

4. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue in this case.

Dated this 18th day of February, 2021.

Case 4:18-cv-00065-CKJ Document 22 Filed 02/18/21 Page 4 of 4