(HC) Lii v. Ciolli ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HENRY LII, Case No. 1:20-cv-00786-AWI-EPG-HC 11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS AND DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 CIOLLI, (ECF No. 16) 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner Henry Lii is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As Petitioner has been released from custody, the undersigned 18 recommends that the petition be dismissed as moot. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 In 2006, Petitioner pleaded guilty to three methamphetamine-related offenses and was 22 sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment based on two prior 23 drug convictions under Hawaii law. (ECF No. 12-1 at 44–45, 67–69).1 The Ninth Circuit 24 affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentence. United States v. Lii, 259 F. App’x 970 (9th Cir. 25 2007). 26 On June 5, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). In the petition, Petitioner asserts that he is actually 1 innocent of his sentence of mandatory life imprisonment because his prior drug convictions are 2 not qualifying predicate offenses under Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), and 3 Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), and that Petitioner did not have an 4 unobstructed procedural shot at presenting this actual innocence claim earlier. (ECF No. 1 at 6– 5 7). On November 13, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Petitioner’s claim 6 may not be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and no escape hatch exception applies. (ECF No. 12). 7 On May 24, 2021, the motion to dismiss was denied. (ECF No. 14). 8 Meanwhile, on December 8, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion for compassionate release or 9 reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in the sentencing court. (ECF No. 16-1 at 19). On 10 March 23, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted Petitioner’s 11 motion for compassionate release and reduced Petitioner’s sentence to time served plus fourteen 12 days of quarantine to minimize COVID-19 risks. (Id. at 52–53). Petitioner was released from 13 prison on April 7, 2021. (Id. at 54). 14 On July 21, 2021, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, arguing inter alia that 15 the petition should be dismissed as moot because Petitioner is no longer a federal prisoner. (ECF 16 No. 16). No opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, and the time for doing so has 17 passed. 18 II. 19 DISCUSSION 20 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 21 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 22 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 23 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 24 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 25 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). 26 In the petition, Petitioner requests that he be resentenced to time served. (ECF No. 1 at 7). 27 As previously noted, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted 1 | on March 23, 2021. Given that Petitioner has received the remedy he requested in his petition, 2 | the undersigned finds that no case or controversy exists. 3 Il. 4 RECOMMENDATION 5 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to 6 | dismiss (ECF No. 16) be granted and the petition be dismissed as moot. 7 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 8 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 9 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 10 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 11 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 12 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 13 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 14 | assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 15 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 16 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. 17 | Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 18 | Cir. 1991)). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21| Dated: _ August 31, 2021 [spe ey 09 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28