(HC) Flores v. Taylor

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 29, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01587
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FELIX NACEDO FLORES, No. 1:23-cv-01587-JLT-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION 13 v. TO DISMISS 14 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, [Doc. 22] 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 On November 9, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (Doc. 1.) On March 20 19, 2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 22.) Respondent seeks 21 dismissal because Petitioner was granted the relief he sought: The BOP has recomputed his 22 sentence to account for state post-arrest custody and he has been released from BOP custody as of 23 March 6, 2024. Petitioner did not file an opposition. Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court 24 will recommend that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED. 25 DISCUSSION 26 I. Motion to Dismiss 27 The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. 28 See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to evaluate 1 motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599, 2 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss for state 3 procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). 4 The Court will review the motion under Rule 4 standards. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 5 12. 6 II. Mootness 7 Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal courts to deciding “cases” 8 and “controversies.” To ensure that any matter presented to a federal court meets that 9 requirement, the Court considers the doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness. See Poe v. 10 Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 502-505 (1961). The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the 11 Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor 12 Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); NAACP, Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 13 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if “the issues presented are no longer 14 ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 15 478, 481 (1984). The Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the 16 rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per 17 curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). 18 Petitioner alleges the BOP failed to properly credit his sentence with time spent in state 19 custody following arrest. Respondent states that Petitioner’s sentence has since been 20 recalculated, he has been given all disputed time credits, and he has been released from BOP 21 custody. Respondent’s exhibits support this contention. 22 According to BOP records, Petitioner’s sentence was recalculated and he was awarded 23 959 days of prior credit time, and the BOP documentation attached to his petition reflects he was 24 only awarded 503 days. (Doc. 1 at 28; 22-1 at 7.) Petitioner was also released from BOP custody 25 on March 6, 2024. (Doc. 22-1 at 7.) Since Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought, the 26 underlying matter is moot. 27 28 1 RECOMMENDATION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 3 be GRANTED. 4 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 6 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 7 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, any 8 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 9 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies 10 to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by 11 mail) after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 13 the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 14 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable 15 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 16 of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18

19 Dated: April 29, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28