Olu Victor Alonge v. Warden FCI Victorville II

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-01755
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLU VICTOR ALONGE, Case No. 5:24-cv-1755-KK-RAO

12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY 13 v. DISMISSING PETITION 14 WARDEN, FCI VICTORVILLE II, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On August 16, 2024, Petitioner Olu Victor Alonge (“Petitioner”), a then- 18 federal inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal 19 Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Victorville, California, and proceeding pro se, 20 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody Pursuant 21 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”).) The Petition claims that the 22 BOP is improperly holding Petitioner at FCI Victorville even though he is eligible 23 for release to a residential reentry center (“RRC”) based on earned First Step Act 24 (“FSA”) credits. (Pet. at 5.) Petitioner alleges the BOP is refusing to release him 25 based on an immigration detainer. (Id. at 3–7.) 26 On November 1, 2024, Petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Habeas Petition 27 Moot. (Dkt. No. 22.) In his motion, Petitioner stated that the BOP informed him of 28 his prerelease date to residential reentry, and consequently, asked the Court to dismiss 1 the Petition as moot. (Id.) 2 On November 8, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition, 3 concurring with Petitioner that the Petition is now moot and asking the Court to 4 dismiss this action. (Dkt. No. 24.) Subsequent to Respondent filing its motion, 5 Petitioner filed two emergency requests seeking an expedited hearing on Petitioner’s 6 unlawful detention. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 27.) Based on these emergency filings, the Court 7 issued an order on November 15, 2024, denying Petitioner’s request to deem the 8 Petition as moot and also denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of 9 mootness. (Dkt. No. 29.) 10 On November 22, 2024, Petitioner filed a Motion to Hold Respondent 11 Accountable for Promise to Fast Track Transfer to Pre-Release Custody. (Dkt. No. 12 32.) Respondent filed its Opposition on November 25, 2024. (Dkt. No. 30.) 13 Petitioner filed his Reply on December 5, 2024, and an Addendum to his Reply on 14 December 12, 2024. (Dkt. Nos. 34–35.) 15 On January 10, 2025, Petitioner filed an Emergency Notice to the Court. (Dkt. 16 No. 36.) Petitioner stated that he had been issued a flight itinerary by BOP, but was 17 then informed by his case manager that, due to a “lack of supervised release,” he 18 would not be released to an RRC. (Id. at 2.) 19 On January 13, 2025, Petitioner sent an email to the Court. (Dkt. No. 38.) 20 Petitioner’s email stated that he had been released from BOP custody. (Id.) On 21 January 14, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the 22 Petition is now moot because Petitioner has been released and is currently under the 23 supervision of the BOP Residential Reentry Management office in Atlanta, Georgia. 24 (Dkt. No. 39.) Lastly, a check of publicly available records shows that Petitioner is 25 located in a residential reentry program in Atlanta, Georgia. See Find an Inmate, 26 Fed. Bureau of Prisons (last visited Jan. 17, 2025), https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. 27 For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the Petition as moot. 28 /// 1 A federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to actual cases or live controversies. 2 || Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “[F]ederal courts may not 3 || “give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions.’” Calderon v. Moore, 4} 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 5 || (1895)). “[W]hen an administrative agency has performed the action sought by a 6 || plaintiff in litigation, a federal court ‘lacks the ability to grant effective relief,’ and 7 || the claim is moot.” Rosemere Neighborhood Ass’n vy. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th 8 || Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 9 || 1996)); see also Arthur v. Milunsic, No. CV 12-10404, 2013 WL 1890335, at *1 10 || (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013). 11 In bringing this action, Petitioner sought release to an RRC based on his 12 || earned FSA time credits. Since the filing of the Petition, Petitioner has been placed 13 || in a residential reentry program. Because he has obtained the relief he sought by 14 || initiating this action—namely, release from BOP custody—the matter no longer 15 || involves a “live controversy.” See Farnsworth v. Tewes, No. EDCV 15-02407, 2016 16 || WL 1253382, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016) (citing Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 17 || 951-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (denying petitioner’s request for a protective ruling in the 18 || event the government raises an argument adverse to petitioner’s claim at a later date 19 || because the case no longer involved a “live controversy,” rendering the petition 20 || moot)). Accordingly, the Petition is moot. 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. All 22 || pending motions are denied as moot. 23 24 || DATED: January 21, 2025 Lune k 6 WM 25 KENLY KIYA KATO 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28