Jayce Pirtle v. F.C.I. Victorville-II

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 31, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-01919
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAYCE PIRTLE, Case No. 5:25-CV-1919-ODW-RAO

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 14 F.C.I. VICTORVILLE-II, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On July 24, 2025, Petitioner Jayce Pirtle (“Petitioner”)—a then-federal inmate 18 in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal Correctional 19 Institution (“FCI”) in Victorville, California, and proceeding pro se—filed a petition 20 for writ of habeas corpus by a person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 21 (“Petition”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition claims that the BOP is improperly 22 withholding Second Chance Act and First Step Act (“FSA”) credits Pet. at 3. The 23 Petition asks the Court to order the BOP to release Petitioner to home confinement. 24 Id. at 4. 25 On September 3, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition 26 (“Motion”), along with a declaration of a BOP legal assistant and supporting exhibits. 27 Dkt. No. 6, 6-1, 6-2. The Motion contends that the Petition should be dismissed for 28 failure to exhaust administrative remedies regarding Petitioner’s request for FSA 1 earned time credits. Dkt. No. 6 at 3–6. Petitioner filed his response in opposition to 2 Respondent’s Motion on October 10, 2025. Dkt. No. 8. 3 The Court independently conducted a public records check of BOP’s inmate 4 locator which indicates that Petitioner was released from BOP custody on December 5 29, 2025. See Find an Inmate, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc 6 (last visited Dec. 31, 2025). For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the 7 Petition as moot. 8 A federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to actual cases or live controversies. 9 United States v. Yepez, 108 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Lewis v. Cont’l 10 Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). This constitutional limitation to cases or 11 controversies necessarily requires that parties to the litigation have a personal stake 12 in the outcome at all stages of judicial proceedings. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. 13 Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2013). Because federal courts are prohibited from 14 adjudicating matters that do not affect the rights of present litigants, a suit is rendered 15 moot when there exists no live issue for the court to grant relief upon. Chafin v. 16 Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (highlighting that Article III of the U.S. 17 Constitution forbids the issuance of advisory opinions where no live case or 18 controversy exists). When a litigant seeks action from an administrative agency, 19 performance by the agency of the relief sought is sufficient to render the claim moot 20 and absolve the federal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. Rosemere 21 Neighborhood Ass’n v. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. 22 Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)). 23 In bringing this action, Petitioner sought release to home confinement, and 24 since the filing of the Petition, he has been released. Because Petitioner has obtained 25 the relief he sought by initiating this action—namely, release from BOP custody— 26 the matter no longer involves a “live controversy.” Peneueta v. Ricolcol, No. 2:23- 27 cv-6361, 2024 WL 2884218, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2024) (citing Burnett v. 28 Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000–01 (9th Cir. 2005)). Because Petitioner was released 1 | from BOP custody, his Petition is now moot. 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. All 3 || pending motions are denied as moot. 4 5 || DATED: December 31, 2025 cage 6 □ OTIS D. WRIGHT II 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28