(HC) Blake v. Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 13, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01035
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON JAMES BLAKE, No. 1:24-cv-01035-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 Respondent. [Doc. 9] 16

17 18 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 On August 30, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (Doc. 1.) On October 30, 21 2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 9.) Respondent seeks dismissal 22 because Petitioner was in fact granted the relief he sought, to wit, the BOP has applied his earned 23 First Step Act time credits to his sentence and he has been transferred to halfway house placement 24 as of October 19, 2024. Petitioner did not file an opposition. Having reviewed the pleadings, the 25 Court will recommend that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED. 26 DISCUSSION 27 I. Motion to Dismiss 28 The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. 1 See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to evaluate 2 motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 3 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss for state 4 procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). 5 The Court will review the motion under Rule 4 standards. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 6 12. 7 II. Mootness 8 Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal courts to deciding “cases” 9 and “controversies.” To ensure that any matter presented to a federal court meets that 10 requirement, the Court considers the doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness. See Poe v. 11 Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 502-505 (1961). The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the 12 Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor 13 Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); NAACP, Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 14 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if “the issues presented are no longer 15 ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 16 478, 481 (1984). The Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the 17 rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per 18 curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). 19 Petitioner alleges the BOP failed to apply his earned First Step Act time credits and place 20 him in a halfway house for the remainder of his sentence. Respondent argues that Petitioner is 21 ineligible for application of First Step Act credits due to his recidivism score, but he has been 22 granted the relief he seeks and has been transferred to a halfway house. According to 23 Respondent’s exhibits, Petitioner was transferred to a halfway house in Gillette, Wyoming, on 24 October 19, 2024, with a projected release date of July 7, 2025. (Doc. 9-1 at 2, 8.) Since 25 Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought, the underlying matter is moot. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a 3 district judge to this case. 4 RECOMMENDATION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 6 be GRANTED. 7 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 9 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 10 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party 11 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should 12 be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not 13 exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 14 consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), 15 the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, 16 when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 17 fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings 18 and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure 19 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson 20 v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.2014). This recommendation is not an order that is 21 immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to 22 Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District 23 Court's judgment. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25

26 Dated: December 12, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27