Bautista v. United States

D. Connecticut

Bautista v. United States

DecidedAugust 6, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-00569

StatusUnknown

This text of Bautista v. United States (Bautista v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bautista v. United States, (D. Conn. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JANETTE BAUTISTA, : petitioner, : : v. : 3:19-cv-00569 (VLB) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : August 6, 2020 respondent. :

ORDER OF DISMISSAL On April 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting habeas relief pursuant to the First Step Act. [ECF No. 1]. Specifically, Petitioner sought to be released to home confinement and have her Good Conduct Time credits recalculated. Id. at 1. This Court ordered the Respondent to show cause why the Petition should not be granted. [ECF No. 11]. On December 18, 2019, the Respondent filed a response to the order to show cause representing that that Petitioner had been released and transferred on an unescorted transfer to Home Confinement. [ECF No. 14 at 3]. Respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed because the matter is now moot; petitioner has does not have a statutory or constitutional entitlement to the relief sought; and petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Id. at 7-12. To date, Petitioner has not filed any objection or reply to Respondent’s response. Upon review, the Court finds that the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has received the relief that she sought by habeas petition and the matter is now moot. See Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013). Additionally, the Bureau of Prisons’ discretionary place of imprisonment 1 determination is not reviewable by this Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Fournier v. Zickefoose, 620 F. Supp. 2d 313, 318 (D. Conn. 2009). Finally, the Court agrees that Petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies required prior to filing a petition for habeas relief. Carmona v. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 634 (2d Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, the petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED.

_______/s/_______________ Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge

SO ORDERED this 6th day of August 2020, at Hartford, Connecticut.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JANETTE BAUTISTA, : petitioner, : : v. : 3:19-cv-00569 (VLB) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : August 6, 2020 respondent. :

ORDER OF DISMISSAL On April 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting habeas relief pursuant to the First Step Act. [ECF No. 1]. Specifically, Petitioner sought to be released to home confinement and have her Good Conduct Time credits recalculated. Id. at 1. This Court ordered the Respondent to show cause why the Petition should not be granted. [ECF No. 11]. On December 18, 2019, the Respondent filed a response to the order to show cause representing that that Petitioner had been released and transferred on an unescorted transfer to Home Confinement. [ECF No. 14 at 3]. Respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed because the matter is now moot; petitioner has does not have a statutory or constitutional entitlement to the relief sought; and petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Id. at 7-12. To date, Petitioner has not filed any objection or reply to Respondent’s response. Upon review, the Court finds that the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has received the relief that she sought by habeas petition and the matter is now moot. See Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013). Additionally, the Bureau of Prisons’ discretionary place of imprisonment 1 determination is not reviewable by this Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Fournier v. Zickefoose, 620 F. Supp. 2d 313, 318 (D. Conn. 2009). Finally, the Court agrees that Petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies required prior to filing a petition for habeas relief. Carmona v. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 634 (2d Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, the petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED.

_______/s/_______________ Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge

SO ORDERED this 6th day of August 2020, at Hartford, Connecticut.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bautista v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bautista-v-united-states-ctd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack