George Fower v. B. Birkholz

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-07115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-07115-DMG-ADS Document 8 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:104

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 2:22-07115 DMG (ADS) Date: February 15, 2023 Title: George Fower v. B. Birkholz

Present: The Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge

Kristee Hopkins None Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorney(s) Present for Petitioner(s): Attorney(s) Present for Respondent(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOOTNESS

On September 29, 2022, George Fower (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner alleges the following three grounds for relief related to his imprisonment under the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”): (1) BOP’s failure to calculate and apply his First Step Act (“FSA”) Credits; (2) BOP has failed to administer the law fairly and equally; and (3) the failure of the BOP to act or respond adequately via the administrative remedy process. (Id. at 6.) B. Birkholz (“Respondent”) subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 5.) I. PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO UPDATE ADDRESS In Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, he states that he is housed at the Garden Grove Residential Reentry Management Center (“RRC”), not the address on record, the Marvin Gardens RRC. (Dkt. No. 6 at 1.) He attaches the BOP’s Transfer Order reflecting that he was transferred to the Garden Grove RRC at 11112 Barclay Dr., Garden Grove, CA 92841. (Id., Ex. A.) However, as of today’s date, Petitioner has not filed a Notice of Change of Address with an address at which he can receive mail. Pro se litigants are required to keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of their current address. L.R. 41-6. Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED to update his address with the Court by no later than March 8, 2023.

CV-90 (03/15) – KA Civil Minutes – General Page 1 of 3 Case 2:22-cv-07115-DMG-ADS Document 8 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:105

Case No.: 2:22-07115 DMG (ADS) Date: February 15, 2023 Title: George Fower v. B. Birkholz II. THE PETITION MAY BE MOOT

A search of publicly available records reveals that Petitioner was released on December 1, 2022. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. Further, on December 2, 2022, Respondent filed a Supplemental Filing Related to Motion to Dismiss (“Supplement”). (Dkt. No. 7.) Respondent’s Supplement notifies the Court of Petitioner’s release based on the addition of FSA Credits and argues that the Petition is moot. (Id.)

A habeas petition is moot if it raises claims that are fully resolved by release from custody. See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007). Given the allegations in the Petition, there is no obvious reason to believe the situation is not fully resolved or that the problem is capable of repetition. As such, the Petition appears to be moot because Petitioner was released from BOP custody after the addition of his FSA Credits. Accordingly, Petitioner must respond to this Order to explain why the Petition should not be dismissed as moot.

Petitioner is ORDERED to file a written response by March 8, 2023 explaining why the Petition is not moot. If Petitioner elects not to proceed in this action, he may request a voluntary dismissal of the Petition without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). To select this option, Petitioner may use the Court’s Notice of Dismissal Form. The Clerk is directed to attach a blank copy of the Notice of Dismissal form (CV-09) for Petitioner’s convenience. The Clerk is directed to send this Order to both Petitioner’s address on record and to the Garden Grove RRC at 11112 Barclay Dr., Garden Grove, CA 92841.

CV-90 (03/15) – KA Civil Minutes – General Page 2 of 3 Case 2:22-cv-07115-DMG-ADS Document 8 Filed 02/15/23 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:106

Case No.: 2:22-07115 DMG (ADS) Date: February 15, 2023 Title: George Fower v. B. Birkholz

Petitioner is expressly warned that his failure to timely comply with this Order may result in the Petition being dismissed for the reasons stated above, failure to prosecute, and/or failure to obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Clerk kh

1 This order is nondispositive. However, if Petitioner believes this order erroneously disposes of any of his claims or precludes any relief sought, he may file objections with the district judge within 20 days of the date of the order. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

CV-90 (03/15) – KA Civil Minutes – General Page 3 of 3