(HC) Karauzum v. Merlak ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAYFUN KARAUZUM, Case No. 1:19-cv-01190-DAD-JDP 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT 13 v. ECF No. 1 14 STEVEN MERLAK, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Tayfun Karauzum, a federal prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the court for preliminary 19 review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Rules Governing Section 20 2254 Cases, Rule 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas 21 petition if it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 22 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th 23 Cir. 1998). We order petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot. 24 Discussion 25 Petitioner’s sole request for relief is a change in his prison placement from incarceration 26 to home confinement. ECF No. 1. Petitioner stated that his projected release date was December 27 28 1 11, 2019, see id. at 7, and the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) inmate locator indicates that he was 2 released on that day.1 3 The “case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2, of the Constitution subsists 4 through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate . . . . The parties must 5 continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank 6 Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, throughout civil 7 proceedings, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable 8 to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. at 477. “[I]f it 9 appears that [the court is] without power to grant the relief requested, then the case is moot.” 10 Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 Custody is a “concrete injury.” See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Once 12 custody has ended, “some concrete and continuing injury” other than detention—a “collateral 13 consequence”—must exist if a habeas petition is to be maintained. See id. When a habeas 14 petitioner challenges his underlying criminal conviction, collateral consequences are presumed to 15 exist, even after a petitioner has been released from custody. See id. However, collateral 16 consequences are not presumed where a habeas petitioner challenges an action other than a 17 criminal conviction. Id. at 12-13. In those cases, the petition is moot once the petitioner is 18 released from custody, unless the petitioner can show that he will suffer collateral consequences. 19 Id. at 14. 20 Here, petitioner’s sole request for relief was placement in home confinement, ECF No. 1 21 at 5, and he is no longer in BOP’s custody. Because it is now “impossible for [the] court to grant 22 any effectual relief” on petitioner’s claim, that claim is moot. See Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 23 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2018). Further, petitioner did not allege any current or future collateral 24 consequences from his custody. Because collateral consequences are not presumed in habeas 25 cases challenging custody, petitioner had the burden to show he would suffer collateral 26 27 1 See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited February 19, 2020) (showing petitioner Tayfun Karauzum, inmate number 58247-053, released 28 on December 11, 2019). 1 | consequences. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14. Therefore, because petitioner is no longer in custody 2 | and he has failed to allege any collateral consequences of his custody, his petition is moot. See id. 3 | Order 4 Within fourteen days of the date of service of this order, petitioner must show cause why 5 | the court should not summarily dismiss the petition as moot. Failure to comply with this order 6 | may result in the dismissal of the petition. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. ° yl, —N prssann — Dated: _ February 21, 2020 10 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 | No. 206. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28