(HC) Aranzubia v. Merlak ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICO ARANZUBIA, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01569-NONE-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO ) GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 12) 14 STEVEN MERLAK, et al., ) 15 Respondents. ) TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE ) 16 ) 17 On November 4, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) The Respondent has moved the Court to dismiss the action as 19 moot. (Doc. 12.) Petitioner did not file an opposition. The Court recommends that the petition be 20 DISMISSED as moot. 21 DISCUSSION 22 I. Procedural Grounds for Motion to Dismiss 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 24 if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 25 relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Rules 26 Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than those 27 brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 28 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(4) provides that the rules are applicable “to proceedings for habeas corpus . . . 1 to the extent that the practice in those proceedings is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules 2 Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases and has previously 3 conformed to the practice in civil actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(4). 4 The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer if 5 the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in violation of the state’s 6 procedural rules. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (using Rule 4 to 7 evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 8 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss for state 9 procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). Thus, 10 a respondent can file a motion to dismiss after the Court orders a response, and the Court should use 11 Rule 4 standards to review the motion. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 12. 12 In this case, Respondent's motion to dismiss is based on mootness. Because Respondent's 13 motion to dismiss is similar in procedural standing to a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state 14 remedies or for state procedural default, the Court will review Respondent’s motion to dismiss 15 pursuant to its authority under Rule 4. 16 II. Mootness 17 Respondent contends that the instant petition is now moot. Specifically, Respondent states that 18 Petitioner initiated another matter in this Court on January 7, 2020, which claimed the same First Step 19 Act relief as the instant petition. (See Doc. 12 at 1-2.) In that case, Petitioner filed a notice of no 20 objection to the findings and recommendations, stating that he had been deemed eligible to earn time 21 credits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d) and therefore “no longer require[d] the assistance of the Court 22 in this matter[.]” See Aranzubia v. Merlak, No. 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO.1 This Court dismissed that 23 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See id. 24 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 25 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983); 26 NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case 27 28 1 The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1 becomes moot if “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable 2 interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal Court is “without 3 power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. 4 Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 5 240-241 (1937)). 6 Because the Court previously dismissed the petition seeking in essence the same relief and 7 Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the relief he sought and withdrew his demand for such relief in that 8 matter, Respondent is correct that the instant petition is moot and should be dismissed. 9 RECOMMENDATION 10 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the 11 habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED as moot. 12 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 13 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 14 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 15 twenty-one days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court 16 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 17 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten 18 court days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 20 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 21 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 2, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28