Claudia Beltran v. Eliseo Ricolcol

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-02311
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLAUDIA BELTRAN, Case No. 5:24-cv-02311-FLA (RAO)

12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY 13 v. DISMISSING PETITION 14 ELISEO RICOLCOL, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 On October 28, 2024, Petitioner Claudia Beltran (“Petitioner”)—a then- 19 federal inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal 20 Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Medium I in Victorville, California, and 21 proceeding pro se—filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 22 Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). Dkt. 1. The Petition 23 claims the BOP is improperly holding Petitioner at FCI Victorville, even though 24 she was allegedly eligible for release on October 1, 2024, based on the Second 25 Chance Act. Dkt. 1 at 1.1 The Petition asks the court to order the BOP to release 26 Petitioner to a reentry program for a period of two months. Id. (asking the court for 27 1 The court cites documents by the page numbers added by the court’s CM/ECF 28 System rather than any page numbers included natively. 1 “2 months [Second Chance Act] so [Petitioner] can get [reacclimated] back into the 2 community for immediate release”). 3 On November 19, 2024, the court ordered Respondent Eliseo Ricolcol 4 (“Respondent”) to file either a motion to dismiss by December 19, 2024, or an 5 answer addressing the merits of the Petition by January 3, 2025. Dkt. 4 at 2. 6 Respondent then sought, ex parte, a thirty-day extension of time to respond to the 7 Petition, which the court granted. Dkts. 6–7. The court’s January 27, 2025, Order 8 granting Respondent’s extension request mailed to Petitioner was subsequently 9 returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 8. 10 The court independently conducted a public records check of BOP’s inmate 11 locator which indicates that Petitioner was released from BOP custody on 12 November 29, 2024. See Find an Inmate, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 13 https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last visited Feb. 10, 2025). For the following 14 reasons, the court dismisses the Petition as moot. 15 A federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to actual cases or live controversies. 16 United States v. Yepez, 108 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Lewis v. Cont’l 17 Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). This constitutional limitation to cases or 18 controversies necessarily requires that parties to the litigation have a personal stake 19 in the outcome at all stages of judicial proceedings. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. 20 Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2013). Because federal courts are prohibited from 21 adjudicating matters that do not affect the rights of present litigants, a suit is 22 rendered moot when there exists no live issue for the court to grant relief upon. 23 Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (highlighting that Article III of the U.S. 24 Constitution forbids the issuance of advisory opinions where no live case or 25 controversy exists). When a litigant seeks action from an administrative agency, 26 performance by the agency of the relief sought is sufficient to render the claim 27 moot and absolve the federal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. Rosemere 28 Neighborhood Ass’n v. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. 1 || Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)). 2 In bringing this action, Petitioner sought release to a reentry program based 3 || on the Second Chance Act. Since the filing of the Petition, Petitioner has been 4 || released. Because she has obtained the relief she sought by initiating this action— 5 || namely, release from BOP custody—the matter no longer involves a “live 6 || controversy.” See Peneueta v. Ricolcol, No. 2:23-cv-6361-PA-JC, 2024 WL 7 || 2884218, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2024) (citing Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 8 || 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005)). Because Petitioner was released from BOP custody on 9 || November 29, 2024, her Petition is now moot. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. All 11 |) pending motions are denied as moot. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: February 18, 2025 sel) 16 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28