(HC) Cruz-Garcia v. Warden, F.C.I. Mendota

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 7, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00076
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ALBERTO CRUZ-GARCIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00076-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS AND DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT 14 WARDEN, F.C.I. MENDOTA, (ECF No. 8) 15 Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 16 TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 Petitioner Jose Alberto Cruz-Garcia is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned 20 recommends that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed as 21 moot. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 In the petition, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) policy of 25 refusing to allow prisoners with immigration detainers to apply earned time credits (“FTCs” or 26 “ETCs”) under the First Step Act (“FSA”). (ECF No. 1.) On May 14, 2024, Respondent filed a 27 motion to dismiss the petition, arguing, inter alia, that “Petitioner presently has no standing as a former BOP inmate, and — at the time of filing — he had no standing to claim FSA ETC 1 sentence-offset application for presence of a (now executed) Final Order of Removal.” (ECF No. 2 8 at 1.1) To date, no opposition or statement of nonopposition has been filed, and the time for 3 doing so has passed. 4 II. 5 DISCUSSION 6 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 7 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 8 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 9 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 10 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 11 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). “When subsequent events 12 resolve the dispute, such that no live issues remain or the parties lack a legally cognizable 13 interest in the outcome, a case becomes moot.” Cuviello v. City of Vallejo, 944 F.3d 816, 824 14 (9th Cir. 2019). “A case that becomes moot at any point during the proceedings is ‘no longer a 15 “Case” or “Controversy” for purposes of Article III,’ and is outside the jurisdiction of the federal 16 courts.” United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 584 U.S. 381, 385–86 (2018) (quoting Already, LLC 17 v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013)). 18 Here, Petitioner asserts that BOP policy is preventing Petitioner from applying his FSA 19 earned time credits toward time in prerelease custody or supervised release. However, Petitioner 20 was removed from the United States to Mexico on February 1, 2024. (ECF No. 8-1 at 2, 1.) 21 Given that Petitioner is no longer in BOP custody or otherwise in prerelease custody or under 22 supervised release, Petitioner is no longer suffering from an actual injury traceable to 23 Respondent and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Accordingly, the Court 24 finds that there is no longer a case or controversy for purposes of Article III and the petition 25 should be dismissed as moot. In light of this determination, the Court will not address the other 26 grounds for dismissal set forth in the motion to dismiss. 27 1 Il. 2 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 4 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) be GRANTED; and 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT. 6 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 7 | the present matter. 8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 9 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 10 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 11 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 12 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 13 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 14 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 15 | assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 16 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 17 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. 18 | Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 19 | Cir. 1991)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22| Dated: _ August 7, 2024 [spe ey 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28