(HC) Diaz-Lozano v. Trate ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FAUSTO DIAZ-LOZANO, No. 1:22-cv-01027-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 14 B.M. TRATE, Warden, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 RE-SERVE AUGUST 11, 2023 ORDER TO Respondent. SHOW CAUSE 16 17 Petitioner Fausto Diaz-Lozano (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner, initiated this action by 18 filing a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 15, 2022, 19 while he was incarcerated at United States Penitentiary (“USP”) Atwater, located in Merced 20 County, California, which is within the venue and jurisdiction of this Court. (Doc. No. 1, 21 “Petition”). The Petition claims the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) “failed to timely calculate and 22 apply First Step Act (FSA) Earned Time Credits (ETC) which is holding Mr. Diaz-Lozano [sic] 23 transfer to home confinement or halfway house under pertinent authorities and policies. If and 24 when the BOP properly applies all earned FSA credits through the present, Mr. Diaz-Lozano [sic] 25 date should move up substantially and be eligible for Residential Reentry Placement.” (Doc. No. 26 1 at 7); see 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A), (C) (providing that time credits earned from completion of 27 evidence-based recidivism reduction programming productive activities shall be applied toward 28 time in prerelease custody or supervised release). On January 26, 2023, Respondent filed a 1 Motion to Dismiss the Petition for several reasons, including lack of jurisdiction and failure to 2 exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 13). On February 2, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply 3 arguing that he exhausted all BOP remedies and again requesting “the Court to order the 4 Respondent to immediate[ly] release him from his Federal Custodial Custody, to Prelease 5 Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (Doc. No. 14 at 1) (emphasis in original). 6 On August 11, 2023, the Court entered an order to show cause directing Petitioner to show 7 why the Court should not dismiss his Petition for mootness due to receiving the relief he 8 requested, to wit, release from his custodial sentence at USP Atwater and transfer to home 9 confinement or a halfway house. (Doc. No. 15). On August 23, 2023, the order to show cause, 10 sent to Petitioner at the facility listed as his “place of confinement” in his Petition, was returned to 11 the Court as “undeliverable, no longer at facility.” (See docket). Petitioner has not responded to 12 the order to show cause, and the deadline for doing so has passed. 13 As indicated in the August 11, 2023 order to show cause, the Court’s sua sponte search of 14 the BOP inmate locator database indicates that Petitioner is currently located at RRM (Residential 15 Reentry Management) in Phoenix, Arizona.1 Federal courts has an independent duty to consider 16 its own subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 12(h)(3); United Investors Life Ins. Co. 17 v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). Under Article III, Section II of the 18 Constitution, a federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to adjudication of “live” cases and 19 controversies. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 705 (2013) (“Article III demands that 20 an actual controversy persist throughout all stages of litigation.”) (internal quotation marks 21 omitted); see also Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (Article III's 22 “cases” and “controversies” limitation requires that “an actual controversy . . . be extant at all 23 stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed,”) (internal quotation marks 24 omitted). To maintain a claim, a litigant must continue to have a personal stake in all stages of 25 the judicial proceeding. Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citation 26 27 1 See BOP Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last visited September 1, 2023). The Court may take judicial notice of information on official government websites. McClure v. Ives, 2010 WL 28 716193, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2010). 1 | omitted). In the context of a habeas petition, the “case or controversy requirement requires a 2 | finding of mootness if (1) the petitioner has received the relief requested in the petition; or (2) the 3 | court is unable to provide the petition with the relief sought.” Aniyeloye v. Birkholz, 2023 WL 4 | 4868545, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2023) (citing Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th 5 | Cir. 1997)); see also Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2018) (case is moot 6 | when it is “impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief” on petitioner’s claim). 7 Because it appears that Petitioner has received the relief requested in the Petition — release 8 | from his custodial sentence at USP Atwater and transfer to home confinement or a halfway house 9 | — the Court must determine whether this action is moot. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 11 1. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall submit 12 || supplemental briefing to address whether this action is moot as Petitioner appears to have been 13 | transferred to home confinement or a halfway house. 14 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to re-serve the Court’s August 11, 2023 Order to Show 15 || Cause at Petitioner’s new location based upon the BOP Inmate Locator: RRM Phoenix, □□□ □□ 16 || First Ave., Suite 405, Phoenix, AZ 85003. 17 | Dated: _ September 5, 2023 Mihaw. fares Zackte 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28