(HC) Woods v. Warden
This text of (HC) Woods v. Warden ((HC) Woods v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND DENIS WOODS, No. 2:23-CV-2430-DMC 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. and 14 WARDEN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Respondent’s unopposed 19 motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 7. 20 21 I. BACKGROUND1 22 In 2015, Petitioner was charged in the United States District Court for the Central 23 District of California with being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 24 922(g)(1). See ECF No. 7-1 (Appendix). Petitioner pleaded guilty was sentenced to 46 months 25 in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) with 287 days of prior credit for his time spent in 26 1 Facts are derived from various court records provided by Respondent in the 27 Appendix filed in support of the motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 7-1. The Court may take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of matters of public record. See U.S. v. 28 14.02 Acres of Land, 530 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008). 1 jail. See id. Petitioner’s projected release date was January 11, 2024, and Petitioner was in fact 2 released on that date.2 See id. at 6. In the instant federal petition, Petitioner seeks relief under the 3 First Step Act (FSA). See ECF No. 1. 4 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 In the unopposed motion to dismiss, Respondent argues this case must be 7 dismissed because Petitioner has been released from custody, rendering this case moot. See ECF 8 No. 7. The Court agrees. Petitioner’s BOP records reflect that Petitioner was released from 9 custody on January 11, 2024. See ECF No. 7-1, pg. 6. Absent collateral consequences of the 10 conviction, which are not alleged here, a “habeas petition does not continue to present a live 11 controversy once the petitioner is released from custody.” Kelley v. Brewer, 2023 WL 2992823, at *3 12 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023) (“there is nothing capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial 13 decision because the BOP has already released [the petitioner]"). Because Petitioner’s release in 14 January 2024 rendered this case moot, the Court does not address Respondent’s argument that the 15 petition must also be dismissed because Petitioner was statutorily ineligible to receive discretionary 16 relief under the FSA. 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / /
27 2 Though Petitioner has been released, the Court’s docket continues to reflect his former address at Federal Correctional Institution – Herlong. This is most likely due to Petitioner’s failure to file a notice of change of 28 address following his release in January 2024. 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows: 3 1. It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly 4 || assigned a District Judge to this case. 5 2. It is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for an expedited decision, ECF 6 || No. 5, 1s GRANTED insofar as the Court herein recommends dismissal of the petition as moot. 7 3. It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss, 8 || ECF No. 7, be GRANTED and that this action be dismissed as moot. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 11 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 12 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 13 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 14 Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 | Dated: June 12, 2024 SS GC M7 DENNIS M. COTA 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(HC) Woods v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-woods-v-warden-caed-2024.