(HC) Henry v. Warden of USP Atwater

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01578
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DREW JOSEPH HENRY, No. 1:24-cv-01578-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 WARDEN, USP-ATWATER, TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 Respondent. [Doc. 6] 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 December 23, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (Doc. 1.) On March 21 4, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 6.) Respondent seeks dismissal 22 because Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought, to wit, the BOP has determined him 23 eligible to earn and apply First Step Act (“FSA”) time credits to his sentence. Petitioner did not 24 file an opposition. Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court will recommend that Respondent’s 25 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 wrongly deemed him ineligible for application of FSA credits 20 due to his underlying conviction. Respondent states the case is now moot because Petitioner’s 21 records have been updated to show he is eligible to earn and apply FSA credits. According to 22 Respondent’s exhibits, on January 8, 2025, BOP Agency Counsel reviewed the petition and 23 determined that Petitioner was eligible to earn FSA credits. (Doc. 6-1 at 3, 13.) On February 21, 24 2025, Petitioner’s records were updated to reflect his eligibility for FSA credits. (Doc. 6-1 at 3, 25 13.) Since Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought, the underlying matter is moot. 26 ORDER 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a 28 district judge to this case. 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, a party 8 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should 9 be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not 10 exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 11 consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), 12 the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, 13 when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 14 fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings 15 and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure 16 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson 17 v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.2014). This recommendation is not an order that is 18 immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to 19 Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District 20 Court's judgment. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22

23 Dated: April 11, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24

25 26 27 28