Grant Bisel v. B. Birkholz

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-07266
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-07266-CJC-MRW Document 22 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:179

1 2 3 4 JS-6 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. CV 22-7266 CJC (MRW) 13 GRANT BISEL, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Petitioner, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 v. 16 B. BIRHOLZ, Warden, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 The Court dismisses this habeas action without prejudice as moot. 20 * * * 21 1. Petitioner Bisel formerly was an inmate at the federal prison in 22 Lompoc. In October 2022, he filed a habeas petition in this district under 23 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The gist of his petition was that Petitioner had earned 24 enough credits (whether under the First Step Act or otherwise) to warrant 25 release from prison and transfer to a residential reentry center. (Docket 26 # 1.) 27 2. Significantly, the relief that Petitioner requested in his petition 28 was an order “to enlarge his custody to halfway house in San Diego” – read Case 2:22-cv-07266-CJC-MRW Document 22 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:180

1 as a transfer to an RRC – and for the BOP “to immediately apply his ETCs 2 [earned time credits] in full compliance with the First Step Act.” (Docket 3 # 2 at 7.) 4 3. After Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the petition, the 5 government provided an expedited status report suggesting that Petitioner 6 had not fully earned enough credits to qualify for release. (Docket # 5, 9.) 7 However, several months later, Petitioner reported that his BOP 8 “pattern score” had changed, which rendered him eligible for release under 9 the First Step Act. (Docket # 16, 17.) 10 4. The government ultimately agreed. The BOP processed 11 Petitioner’s paperwork and, after an unfortunate storm-related delay, 12 transferred Petitioner to an RRC in late January 2022. (Docket # 18; # 21 13 at 4.) (Judge Wilner independently confirmed this on the BOP’s public 14 website.) 15 * * * 16 5. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 17 detained is not entitled” to relief, a court may summarily dismiss an action. 18 Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for 19 summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of 20 the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 21 * * * 22 6. Petitioner’s action is moot. The habeas relief that he sought in 23 his petition was an order expediting his transfer from federal prison to a 24 halfway house. He subsequently received that transfer when he became 25 eligible for it. There is no basis for this Court to consider his habeas corpus 26 claim further. Green v. Jenkins, 859 F. App’x 186, 187 (9th Cir. 2021) 27 (prisoner’s “claim for habeas relief premised on conditions at MDC LA is 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-07266-CJC-MRW Document 22 Filed 02/22/23 Page3of3 Page ID #:181

1 | now moot” due to transfer to different facility); Miller v. United States, No. 2 | ED CV 18-2064 SVW (SP) (C.D. Cal.), 2020 WL 3979693 at *2 (prisoner 3 | transfer to another prison rendered petition moot; “it appears petitioner’s 4 | claims have at least substantially been met’). 5 7. Dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas action is appropriate because 6 | there is no other aspect of his sentence or conditions of confinement for this 7 | Court to address.! Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 8 | 2000). As a result, the case must be dismissed without prejudice as moot. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 i Ko fe 12 | Dated: February 22, 2023 □ 13 HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 Presented by: 16 17 18 HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 | —SSS————— 1 In a later filing, Petitioner contended that he was entitled to 24 | maintain tort claims against the BOP. (Docket # 20.) The Court considered whether to convert Petitioner’s habeas action into a civil rights action based on 25 | his allegations of improper detention at the Lompoc facility. However, those allegations are unclear, cursory, and failed to identify proper defendants for a tort 26 | / civil rights action. On that basis, the Court declines to convert Petitioner’s case. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016) (“court may recharacterize 27 | the petition so long as it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion” (including cost of filing fees)); Fiorito v. Entzel, 829 F. App’x 192, 194 28 | (9th Cir. 2020) (same; declining conversion).