Spresim Alimi v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 25, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02928
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SPRESIM ALIMI, Case No. 2:23-cv-02928-RGK-PD 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. 14 HABEAS CORPUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 WARDEN OF USP LOMPOC, 16 Respondent.

18 On April 17, 2023, Petitioner Spresim Alimi, who was an inmate at the 19 United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, filed a Petition for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Dkt. No. 1.] Petitioner alleges that 21 the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) failed to apply his earned time credits (“ETCs”) 22 under the First Step Act (“FSA”) toward service of his sentence or placement 23 into pre-release custody. [Id.] 24 On August 8, 2023, the government moved to dismiss the Petition on 25 the ground that it is moot, because the BOP had applied the credits towards 26 early placement on supervised release, and that to the extent Petitioner 27 intends to contest the BOP’s application of the credits, he has failed to 28 exhaust his available administrative remedies. [Dkt. No. 10.] I Petitioner is currently located at a residential reentry center in Chicago, 2 || Illinois. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited January 19, 2024). 3 || BOP applied the credits and placed him on supervised release. Petitioner has 4 || obtained the remedy he sought, and his claim is therefore moot. See Bishop 5 || Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, 863 F.3d 1144, 1155 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A federal 6 || court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot.”); Tamaalemalo v. Derr, 7 || 2023 WL 4054558, at *2 (D. Haw. June 16, 2023) (dismissing a habeas 8 || petition as moot where BOP had already applied petitioner’s ETCs to her 9 || sentence); Parham v. Benov, 2012 WL 141388835, at *38-4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 10 || 2012) (recommending dismissal of the petition as moot because petitioner had 11 || already been transferred to a residential re-entry center in another state for 12 || the remainder of his sentence). Consequently, there is no live case or 13 || controversy for the Court to adjudicate. U.S. Const. art. IT § 2. 14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss 15 || the Petition is GRANTED and that Judgment be entered dismissing the 16 || Petition without prejudice. 17 18 DATED: January 25, 2024

0 R. GAR KLAUSNER United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28