(HC) Rodriguez-Rodriguez v. Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00666
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SLYTHER J. RODRIGUEZ- No. 1:24-cv-00666-KES-SKO (HC) RODRIGUEZ, 12 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT Petitioner, OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT AND 13 DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 14 v. Doc. 1 15

17 WARDEN, F.C.I. MENDOTA, 18 Respondent. 19 20 Petitioner Slyther J. Rodriguez-Rodriguez is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 21 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This 22 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 23 Local Rule 302. 24 The petition asserts that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) refused to apply earned time 25 credits under the First Step Act because petitioner is subject to an immigration detainer. Doc. 1 at 26 6. Petitioner asserts that, had BOP applied those earned time credits, his release date would have 27 been July 25, 2024. Id. at 18. However, because BOP refused to apply those earned time credits, 28 his release date was changed to July 25, 2025. Id. Petitioner requests judicial review pursuant to 1 the Administrative Procedure Act of BOP’s determination in the 2022 version of Program 2 Statement 5410.01 that inmates subject to immigration detainers are not entitled to have earned 3 time credits applied to their sentences. Id. at 16–18. 4 The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the 5 petition as unexhausted. Doc. 6. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all 6 parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) 7 days after service. The petitioner timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 8 Doc. 7. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 10 novo review of the case. The Court declines to address the findings and recommendations and 11 instead dismisses this case as moot. 12 A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a habeas petition unless the petitioner is “in 13 custody.” Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (June 5, 2001). 14 “The general rule concerning mootness has long been that a petition for habeas corpus becomes 15 moot when a prisoner completes his sentence before the court has addressed the merits of his 16 petition.” Id. (quoting Larche v. Simons, 53 F.3d 1068, 1069 (9th Cir.1995)). Petitioner was 17 released from custody on July 25, 2025. Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, 18 https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (utilizing petitioner’s BOP Register Number, 09676-104);1 see 19 also Doc. 1 at 18 (noting that, without applying earned time credits, petitioner was scheduled to 20 be released on July 25, 2025. Therefore, the petition is moot and must be dismissed. See Spencer 21 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (habeas petition must be dismissed once it becomes moot). 22 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 23 because this is an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 24 1 The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination 25 by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts regularly take judicial 26 notice of information available on online inmate locators. See, e.g., See United States v. Basher, 27 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (taking judicial notice of BOP's online Inmate Locator to determine date defendant was released from custody). The Court takes judicial notice of the 28 information available on BOP’s inmate locator. 1 | nota final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of 2 | process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); 3 | see Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 4 | (10th Cir. 1996). 5 Accordingly, 6 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice as moot; and 7 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 8 9 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ August 27, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28