(HC) Valencia v. Warden, F.C.I. Mendota ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 NEIVER SURLEY MINA VALENCIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00148-EPG-HC 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S SUPERSEDING MOTION TO DISMISS, 12 v. TERMINATING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING AS MOOT 13 WARDEN, F.C.I. MENDOTA, PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE FINAL 14 Respondent. ORDER OF DEPORTATION, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 15 CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 16 (ECF Nos. 10, 17, 20) 17 18 Petitioner Neiver Surley Mina Valencia is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a 20 United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court 21 grants Respondent’s superseding motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition as moot. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 In the petition, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) policy of 25 refusing to allow prisoners with immigration detainers or unresolved immigration status to earn 26 First Step Act (“FSA”) Time Credits (“FTCs” or “ETCs”) and/or apply FTCs. (ECF No. 1.) 27 Respondent initially moved to dismiss the petition, arguing, inter alia, that “Petitioner is jurisdictionally and statutorily barred from FSA ETC sentence-offsets due to the final order of 1 removal from another federal court.” (ECF No. 10 at 3.)1 On June 28, 2023, the Court ordered 2 Respondent to file a copy of Petitioner’s purported final order of removal. (ECF No. 11.) 3 Respondent was granted multiple extensions of time to comply with the June 28th order. (ECF 4 Nos. 13, 16, 19.) Meanwhile, on August 31, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for Respondent to 5 produce Petitioner’s final order of deportation. (ECF No. 17.) 6 On September 8, 2023, Respondent filed a superseding motion to dismiss because “after 7 interagency cross-checks, Respondent has determined that Petitioner to date has not suffered a 8 final order of removal.” (ECF No. 20 at 2.) Respondent argues that the petition should be 9 dismissed because, inter alia, Petitioner has been determined eligible for award of FSA FTCs 10 and thus, the petition is moot. (Id. at 3–4.) To date, Petitioner has not filed an opposition or 11 statement of non-opposition to the superseding motion to dismiss, and the time for doing so has 12 passed. 13 II. 14 DISCUSSION 15 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 16 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 17 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 18 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 19 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 20 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). 21 The record before the Court shows that an FSA Time Credit Assessment was completed 22 for Petitioner on September 4, 2023, and reflects that Petitioner has been awarded 365 days of 23 FTCs toward early transfer to supervised release and has earned an additional 445 days of FTCs 24 that may be applied towards residential reentry placement. (App. 002, 006.)2 Given that 25 Petitioner has received the remedy he requested in his petition, the undersigned finds that no case 26 27 1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 2 “App.” refers to the Appendix filed by Respondent on September 8, 2023. (ECF No. 20-1.) Appendix page 1 | or controversy exists and dismissal is warranted on this ground.* 2 In light of Respondent’s submission to the Court that Petitioner has not suffered a final 3 | order of removal, (ECF No. 20 at 2), the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion for Respondent to 4 | produce Petitioner’s final order of deportation. 5 Il. 6 ORDER 7 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 8 1. Respondent’s superseding motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED; 9 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is TERMINATED; 10 3. Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 17) is DENIED as MOOT; 11 4. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and 12 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 6, 2023 [sl heey 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |_—_SSSSSSSS 3 As the Court finds that the petition should be dismissed as moot, the Court will not address Respondent’s other 28 | srounds for dismissal set forth in the superseding motion to dismiss.