(HC) Blundell v. FCI Mendota Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESE HAWK BLUNDELL SR., Case No. 1:22-cv-01590-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING 14 FCI MENDOTA WARDEN, CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 14) 16 17 18 Petitioner Jese Hawk Blundell Sr. is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the 20 jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10.) For the reasons stated 21 herein, the Court grants Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition as moot. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 In the petition, Petitioner challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) policy of 25 preventing inmates from earning First Step Act (“FSA”) time credits (“FTCs”) and/or applying 26 FTCs within eighteen months of release. (ECF No. 1 at 6.)1 Petitioner requests that the Court 27 order the BOP to calculate all of Petitioner’s FTCs and apply said FTCs immediately. (ECF No. 1 1 at 7.) Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that this Court “should dismiss the 2 petition for lack of Article III standing and ripeness, and statutorily for lack of jurisdiction under 3 § 2241.” (ECF No. 14 at 1.) To date, Petitioner has not filed an opposition or statement of non- 4 opposition, and the time for doing so has passed. 5 II. 6 DISCUSSION 7 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 8 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 9 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 10 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 11 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 12 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). “When subsequent events 13 resolve the dispute, such that no live issues remain or the parties lack a legally cognizable 14 interest in the outcome, a case becomes moot.” Cuviello v. City of Vallejo, 944 F.3d 816, 824 15 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “A case that becomes moot at any point during the 16 proceedings is ‘no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III,’ and is outside 17 the jurisdiction of the federal courts.” United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 18 (2018) (citation omitted). 19 In the motion to dismiss, Respondent argues that the petition lacks case and controversy 20 because “BOP has updated its policy so that it is now automated to award FTCs through an 21 inmate’s earning status (i.e., including the 18-months prior to sentence incarceration term 22 completion).” (ECF No. 14 at 1; accord Liwag Decl. ¶ 15, ECF No. 14-1 at 23 (“BOP, however, 23 is not disallowing inmates within 18 months of release to earn time credits.”).) Given that the 24 policy challenged in the petition is no longer in place, the Court finds that the petition is moot 25 and dismissal is warranted on this ground.2 26 27 2 As the Court finds that the petition should be dismissed as moot, the Court will not address Respondent’s other grounds for dismissal set forth in the motion to dismiss. Further, Petitioner has not opposed the motion to dismiss 1 III. 2 ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED; 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED as MOOT; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9! Dated: _ June 16, 2023 [see hey 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28