(HC) Hand v. Sawyer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEHU HAND, Case No. 1:19-cv-01329-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT 13 v. RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 14 KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, STEVEN “MIKE” MERLAK, (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner Jehu Hand, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, petitioned for a writ of habeas 20 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). In June 2019, petitioner, while incarcerated at Taft 21 Federal Corrections Institution, sought placement in either home confinement or at a residential 22 reentry center. (Doc. No. 1 at 3). Petitioner’s request was rejected by the Bureau of Prisons, as 23 were his administrative appeals of the rejection. (Id. at 6-7). As relief, petitioner requests the 24 court to review the BOP’s placement decision and order an independent panel to access 25 petitioner’s placement. (Id. at 2). 26 II. APPLICABLE LAW 27 The “case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, § 2, of the Constitution subsists 28 through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. . .. The parties must nen nn nee enn nn nnn EE I EEE EIDE IES 1 | continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank 2 | Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, throughout civil 3 | proceedings, the petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable 4 | to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Jd. at 477. “[I]f it 5 || appears that [the court is] without power to grant the relief requested, then the case is moot.” 6 | Picrin-Peron vy. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 IW. ANALYSIS 8 It appears petitioner has recently been placed under the supervision of the Long Beach 9 | residential reentry management field office, meaning that petitioner has been placed in either 10 | home confinement or in a residential reentry center.! Indeed, petitioner’s recently filed notice of 11 | change of address confirms his new address does not correspond to a correctional facility. (Doc. 12 | No. 27). Because the relief petitioner seeks, placement in either home confinement or in a 13 || residential reentry center, has seemingly already been granted, the court is “without power to 14 | grant the relief requested.” Picrin-Peron, 930 F.2d at 775. Therefore, the court orders petitioner 15 | to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as moot. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this order, petitioner must show cause why his 18 | petition should not be dismissed as moot. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: March 16, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh fackte 22 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 73 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 ————_ ' The court reviewed the Federal Bureau of Prison’s inmate locator listing for petitioner and takes judicial 27 | notice of it per Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Find an Inmate, 38 https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (search “Find by Name” for “Jehu Hand”).