(HC) Jaramillo v. Warden, F.C.I. Mendota ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUADALUPE JARAMILLO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00414-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER VACATING NOVEMBER 28, 2023 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, 13 v. GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR 14 WARDEN, F.C.I. MENDOTA, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND 15 Respondent. DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 16 (ECF Nos. 11, 13) 17 18 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 On November 28, 2023, the Court issued findings and recommendation recommending 21 that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed as moot because 22 Petitioner already received the remedy he requested in his petition and thus, no case or 23 controversy exists. (ECF No. 13.) The parties have now consented to the jurisdiction of a United 24 States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 18.) Accordingly, the Court vacates the November 28, 2023 25 findings and recommendation and issues this order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss for 26 the reasons set forth in the November 28, 2023 findings and recommendation. 27 /// /// 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND 3 In the petition, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of Prisons’ policy that excludes 4 inmates considered organizers/leaders and inmates with immigration detainers from applying 5 their First Step Act (“FSA”) Earned Time Credits (“FTCs”). (ECF No. 1 at 6.)1 Petitioner 6 requests that the Court direct the Federal Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) to immediately calculate and 7 apply all of the FTCs to which he is entitled. (Id. at 7.) Respondent has moved to dismiss the 8 petition, asserting (among other grounds) that there is no case or controversy because Petitioner 9 has been awarded FTCs that have been applied and resulted in an advanced release date and 10 Petitioner is no longer in BOP custody. (ECF No. 11 at 2.) To date, Petitioner has not filed an 11 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the time for doing so has 12 passed. 13 II. 14 DISCUSSION 15 Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to 16 “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 17 (1990). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial 18 proceedings,” which “means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or 19 be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a 20 favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. 21 at 477). 22 Here, the record before the Court establishes that Petitioner earned 365 days of FTCs 23 towards early release and 430 additional days of FTCs towards pre-release community custody, 24 which the BOP determined were enough to advance Petitioner’s date of supervision to 25 immediate release. (ECF No. 11-1 at 6, 11–12.) Petitioner was released from BOP custody on 26 July 28, 2023. (Id. at 8.) Given that Petitioner has received the remedy he requested in his 27 1 | petition, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists and dismissal is warranted on this 2 | ground.” 3 Ii. 4 ORDER 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. The findings and recommendation issued on November 28, 2023 (ECF No. 13) is 7 VACATED; 8 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED; 9 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and 10 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 11 Db IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 13 | Dated: _February 16, 2024 _ ef 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | ? In light of this conclusion, the Court declines to address Respondent’s other grounds for dismissal set forth in the 28 | motion to dismiss.