(HC) Engineer v. Warden, FCI Mendota ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VEDAS ENGINEER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00125-EPG-HC 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING 11 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING 12 WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 13 Respondent. (ECF No. 14) 14 15 Petitioner Vedas Engineer is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States 17 Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 4, 10, 11.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants 18 Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the petition as moot. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 In the petition, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) policy of 22 refusing to allow prisoners with immigration detainers or unresolved immigration status to earn 23 First Step Act (“FSA”) Time Credits (“FTCs”) and/or apply FTCs. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent has 24 filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing, inter alia, that there is no case or controversy 25 because Petitioner has earned and applied FTCs resulting in his release from BOP custody. (ECF 26 No. 14 at 2–3.)1 To date, Petitioner has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 27 the motion to dismiss, and the time for doing so has passed. 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 4 | Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 5 | requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 6 | throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 7 | traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 8 | v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). 9 The record before the Court shows that Petitioner was released from BOP custody on 10 | March 2, 2023, with 365 days of applied FSA credits. (App. 023-024.) Given that Petitioner has 11 | received the remedy to which he would have been entitled had this Court rendered a favorable 12 | judicial decision on his petition, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists and dismissal 13 | is warranted on this ground.? 14 II. 15 ORDER 16 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 17 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED; 18 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and 19 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22| Dated: _ June 28, 2023 [spe ey 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 2 “App.” refers to the Appendix filed by Respondent on April 25, 2023. (ECF No. 14-1.) Appendix page numbers 27 | refer to the page numbers stamped at the bottom right corner. 3 As the Court finds that the petition should be dismissed for lack of case or controversy, the Court will not address 28 | Respondent’s other grounds for dismissal set forth in the motion to dismiss.