Jorge Ortiz Oliva v. C. Lepe, Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE ORTIZ OLIVA, Case No. 5:25-cv-01492-JAK-RAO

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 14 C. LEPE, Warden,1 15 Respondent. 16 17 On June 16, 2025, Petitioner Jorge Ortiz Oliva (“Petitioner”)—a then-federal 18 inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal Correctional 19 Institution (“FCI”) Medium I in Victorville, California, and proceeding pro se—filed 20 a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in federal custody pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition claims that the BOP is 22 improperly denying Petitioner earned time credits under the First Step Act (“FSA”). 23 Pet. at 2. The Petition asks the Court to order the BOP to apply his FSA earned 24 credits and direct that Petitioner be immediately released to the custody of 25 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Id. at 8. 26 1 The Petition names Eliseo Ricolcol as the Respondent. Currently, C. Lepe is the 27 Warden at Victorville Medium I FCI, and is therefore substituted in as the proper 28 Respondent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 On August 1, 2025, Respondent filed an Answer, along with a declaration of 2 a BOP paralegal specialist and supporting exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 12, 12-1. The Answer 3 contends that the Petition should be denied for failure to exhaust administrative 4 remedies. Dkt. No. 12 at 2. Alternatively, Respondent contends that BOP acted 5 within its statutory authority in excluding inmates subject to immigration detainers 6 from earning credits under the FSA. Id. 4-8. 7 The Court independently conducted a public records check of BOP’s inmate 8 locator which indicates that Petitioner was no longer in BOP custody as of February 9 10, 2026. See Find an Inmate, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc 10 (last visited Feb. 20, 2026). For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the 11 Petition as moot. 12 A federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to actual cases or live controversies. 13 United States v. Yepez, 108 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Lewis v. Cont’l 14 Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). This constitutional limitation to cases or 15 controversies necessarily requires that parties to the litigation have a personal stake 16 in the outcome at all stages of judicial proceedings. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. 17 Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2013). Because federal courts are prohibited from 18 adjudicating matters that do not affect the rights of present litigants, a suit is rendered 19 moot when there exists no live issue for the court to grant relief upon. Chafin v. 20 Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (highlighting that Article III of the U.S. 21 Constitution forbids the issuance of advisory opinions where no live case or 22 controversy exists). When a litigant seeks action from an administrative agency, 23 performance by the agency of the relief sought is sufficient to render the claim moot 24 and absolve the federal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. Rosemere 25 Neighborhood Ass’n v. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. 26 Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)). 27 In bringing this action, Petitioner sought release from BOP’s custody into ICE 28 custody. Since the filing of the Petition, he has been released. Because Petitioner 1 || has obtained the relief he sought by initiating this action—namely, release from BOP 2 || custody—the matter no longer involves a “live controversy.” Peneueta v. Ricolcol, 3 || No. 2:23-cv-6361, 2024 WL 2884218, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2024) (citing Burnett 4 || v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, his Petition is now 5 |} moot. 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 7 8 || DATED: February 23, 2026 C) tn, JOHNA.KRONSTADT 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28