(HC) Guyton v. U.S. Marshall's Service ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO G. GUYTON, No. 1:23-cv-00795-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING 13 v. CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 14 U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., [Doc. 9] 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a former federal detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to 20 magistrate judge jurisdiction for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. (Docs. 5, 10.) 21 On June 21, 2023, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court. At that time, Petitioner 22 was a detainee of the U.S. Parole Commission at the Fresno County Jail in Fresno, California. On 23 August 22, 2023, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot as Petitioner has been 24 granted the relief he sought and released from custody. (Doc. 9.) For reasons discussed below, 25 the Court recommends that the motion be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED. 26 DISCUSSION 27 In his petition, Petitioner contends he was being illegally detained pursuant to a warrant 28 issued for charges that were dismissed on or about May 18, 1999. On June 22, 2023, Respondent 1 released Petitioner from custody on the warrant, and his federal parole was concluded. (Doc. 9-1 2 at 2.) 3 The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 4 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 5 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A 6 case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally 7 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal 8 Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before 9 them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. 10 Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). When a prisoner is released from custody, any 11 habeas petition challenging continued detention becomes moot. Fender v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 12 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir.1988). 13 Because Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought and is no longer in custody, the 14 petition is now moot. 15 ORDER 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 17 1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as moot is GRANTED; 18 2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and 19 3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case. 20 This terminates this action in its entirety. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: September 13, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28