Plummer v. Houser

• Court: District Court, D. Alaska
• Decided: May 23, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

DANIEL LEE PLUMMER, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 3:22-cv-00019-JMK EARL HOUSER, Respondent. ORDER OF DISMISSAL Self-represented prisoner, Daniel Lee Plummer, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 At the time of filing, Mr. Plummer was a pretrial detainee at Goose Creek Correctional Center with pending Alaska state criminal charges.2 The Court screened Mr. Plummer’s Petition in accordance with Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts,3 dismissed three of the claims, but granted leave to amend as to the Speedy Trial claim.4 Mr. Plummer submitted a First Amended Complaint on

1 Docket 1. 2 See Id. 3 Local Habeas Rule 1.1(c)(2) (providing that the same procedural rules for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and § 2255 govern 28 U.S.C. § 2241). 4 Docket 5. March 30, 2022.5 Again, this Court takes judicial notice of Mr. Plummer’s criminal case in the Alaska Superior Court at 3AN-17-04692CR.6

28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides federal courts with general habeas corpus jurisdiction.7 A court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition.8 “If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion[.]”9

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, because Article III § 2 of the U.S. Constitution only grants federal courts the authority to hear actual cases and controversies. The U.S. Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement necessitates that a petitioner must have an actual injury traceable to the defendant (or respondent) that can be remedied with a favorable judicial decision.10 A petition

5Docket 6. 6 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201. 7 See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 608 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1999). 8 Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. (The same procedural rules for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 govern 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Local Habeas Corpus Rule 1.1(c)(2)). 9 Id. 10 Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 3:22-cv-00019-JMK, Plummer v. Houser Order of Dismissal for a writ of habeas corpus is moot when it no longer presents an actual injury and the relief requested cannot be remedied by a favorable decision from the court.11

Mootness is jurisdictional; therefore, a moot petition must be dismissed, because nothing remains before a court to be remedied.12 The public record of the Alaska Superior Court shows that on May 4, 2022, Charges 1–6 were dismissed by the prosecution, Mr. Plummer’s bond was exonerated, and Case No. 3AN-17-04692CR was closed.13 Mr. Plummer is no

longer a pre-trial detainee pursuant to Case No. 3AN-17-04692CR. Mr. Plummer no longer faces an alleged injury to his speedy trial rights that can be remedied with a favorable judicial decision; therefore, this petition is moot. For the foregoing reasons, it plainly appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Plummer’s Petition, because the issue is moot. Therefore, Mr. Plummer’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be dismissed.

IT IS THERFORE ORDERED: 1. The Petition at Docket 1 is DISMISSED. 2. All pending motions are DENIED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment in this case.

11 Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003); Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000– 01 (9th Cir. 2005). 12 Spencer, 523 U.S. at 18. 13 State of Alaska v. Daniel Lee Plummer, Case No. 3AN-17-04692CR (Docket Information entries dated 05/04/2022). 3:22-cv-00019-JMK, Plummer v. Houser Order of Dismissal The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order along with the Judgment to Mr. Plummer at his new, unrelated custodial location of Cook Inlet Pretrial.14

4. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.15 Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 23rd day of May, 2022. /s/ Joshua M. Kindred United States District Judge

14 See generally State of Alaska v. Daniel Lee Plummer, Case No. 4FA-90-00579CR.

15 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). 3:22-cv-00019-JMK, Plummer v. Houser Order of Dismissal