Steven Johnson v. Andre Matevousian ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN A. JOHNSON, No. 17-17505
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00600-DAD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Steven Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a section 2241 petition, see
Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Johnson first contends that the district court erred by dismissing as moot the
claim regarding his detention in the segregated housing unit (“SHU”) at United
States Penitentiary Atwater (“USP-Atwater”). At the time of the district court’s
decision, Johnson had been transferred out of USP-Atwater, and he now has
completed his custodial sentence and is serving a term of supervised release.
Because the court can no longer grant the relief requested—release from the
SHU—his claim is moot. See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th
Cir. 1997). Contrary to his contention, Johnson cannot avoid mootness by seeking
damages as “damages are not an available habeas remedy.” Nelson v. Campbell,
541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004).
To the extent Johnson also challenges the denial of his due process claims,
the district court did not err. In his petition, Johnson challenged three disciplinary
proceedings, which resulted in the loss of good conduct time, on the basis that the
proceedings did not comport with due process. Before asserting these claims in a
habeas petition, Johnson was required to exhaust all available administrative
remedies or demonstrate waiver of the exhaustion requirement. See Ward v.
Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012). Johnson did neither. Further, the
record shows that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural due
process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72
(1974), and that “some evidence” supported the Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s
2 17-17505
decisions, see Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).
Johnson’s remaining claims are not cognizable under section 2241 because
they do not concern the manner, location, or conditions of the execution of his
sentence. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-17505