Robert Lee Childress, Jr v. Collette Peters

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-02565
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 5:24-cv-02565 WLH (ADS) Date: June 25, 2025 Title: Robert Lee Childress, Jr. v. B. Birkholz, Warden

Present: The Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge

Kristee Hopkins None Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorney(s) Present for Petitioner(s): Attorney(s) Present for Respondent(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOOTNESS

Petitioner Robert Lee Childress, Jr., filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner claims the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) refused to recommend and transfer him to home confinement or a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) pursuant to the Second Chance Act. (Id. at 3.) Respondent B. Birkholz filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on jurisdiction and exhaustion grounds. (Dkt. No. 15 at 3.) A search of publicly available records reveals that Petitioner has been transferred to an RRC in Long Beach, California.1 A habeas petition becomes moot where the relief it seeks has been provided. See Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2010). In light of Petitioner’s transfer to an RRC, the Petition appears to be moot.

The Parties are ORDERED to file a written response by July 2, 2025 why the Court should not recommend dismissal of this Petition on the ground of mootness.

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the information contained on the BOP inmate locator website. See Murdock v. Martinez, No. 2:19-cv-01413 RSWL (SHK), 2019 WL 4138017, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2019) (citing Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995)). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 5:24-cv-02565 WLH (ADS) Date: June 25, 2025 Title: Robert Lee Childress, Jr. v. B. Birkholz, Warden Petitioner is expressly warned that his failure to timely comply with this Order may result in the Petition being dismissed for the reasons stated above, failure to prosecute, and/or failure to obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Clerk kh

2 This order is nondispositive. However, if Petitioner believes this order erroneously disposes of any of his claims or precludes any relief sought, he may file objections with the district judge within 20 days of the date of the order. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.