Marcela Ramirez-Rodriguez v. Warden Eliseo Ricolcol

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 18, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-02289
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELA RAMIREZ- Case No. 5:24-cv-2289-DSF-RAO RODRIGUEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 14 PETITION ELISEO RICOLCOL, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16

17 On October 23, 2024, Petitioner Marcela Ramirez-Rodriguez (“Petitioner”)— 18 a then-federal inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal 19 Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Medium I in Victorville, California, and proceeding 20 pro se—filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition claims 22 that the BOP is improperly holding Petitioner at FCI Victorville even though she is 23 eligible for transfer to a residential reentry center (“RRC”) based on the Second 24 Chance Act. Pet. at 1.1 The Petition asks the Court to order the BOP to release 25 Petitioner to an RRC or home confinement. Id. 26 27 1 The Court utilizes the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system when citing to 28 the Petition. 1 On December 20, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition 2 (“Motion”), along with a declaration of a BOP program specialist and supporting 3 exhibits. Dkt. No. 8. The Motion contends that the Petition should be dismissed on 4 procedural grounds for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 3. With 5 respect to Petitioner’s release date, Respondent calculated a statutory release date of 6 August 26, 2025, and an actual projected release date of May 13, 2025, with First 7 Step Act (“FSA”) credits applied. Dkt. No. 8 at 1. 8 On January 15, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw her Petition on the 9 grounds that the BOP scheduled her release to an RRC for January 15, 2025. Dkt. 10 No. 11. Respondent subsequently filed a response in support of Petitioner’s motion 11 to withdraw and requested that the Court enter an order dismissing the Petition with 12 prejudice. Dkt. No. 12 at 1. The Court independently conducted a public records 13 check of BOP’s inmate locator which indicates that Petitioner was transferred to a 14 residential reentry management field office in Long Beach, California. See Find an 15 Inmate, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last visited Jan. 24, 16 2024). For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the Petition as moot. 17 A federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to actual cases or live controversies. 18 United States v. Yepez, 108 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Lewis v. Cont’l 19 Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). This constitutional limitation to cases or 20 controversies necessarily requires that parties to the litigation have a personal stake 21 in the outcome at all stages of judicial proceedings. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. 22 Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2013). Because federal courts are prohibited from 23 adjudicating matters that do not affect the rights of present litigants, a suit is rendered 24 moot when there exists no live issue for the court to grant relief upon. Chafin v. 25 Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (highlighting that Article III of the U.S. 26 Constitution forbids the issuance of advisory opinions where no live case or 27 controversy exists). When a litigant seeks action from an administrative agency, 28 performance by the agency of the relief sought is sufficient to render the claim moot 1 || and absolve the federal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. Rosemere 2 || Neighborhood Ass’n v. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. 3 || Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)). 4 In bringing this action, Petitioner sought release to an RRC placement or home 5 || detention based on the Second Chance Act. Since the filing of the Petition, Petitioner 6 || has been released. Because she has obtained the relief she sought by initiating this 7 || action—namely, release from BOP custody—the matter no longer involves a “live 8 || controversy.” Peneueta v. Ricolcol, No. 2:23-cv-6361-PA-JC, 2024 WL 2884218, 9 | at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2024) (citing Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 10 }| (9th Cir. 2005)). Further, Petitioner’s motion to withdraw serves as an 11 || acknowledgment that she seeks no further remedy from this Court following her 12 || release from BOP custody. Because Petitioner was released to a residential reentry 13 || center, her Petition is now moot. 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. All 15 || pending motions are denied as moot. 16 17 | DATED: April 18, 2025 A. Jarchor THE HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28