Opinion
CV 22-05223-FLA (RAO)
11-08-2022
Robert Christian DiMaggio v. B. Birkholz
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOOTNESS
HONORABLE ROZELLA A. OLIVER, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July 28, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Dkt. No. 1. The Petition claims that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has refused to calculate and apply First Step Act earned time credits. Petition at 3.
On October 17, 2022, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 7. Respondent contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition because it is largely moot in light of Petitioner's anticipated release in October 2022. Motion at 3. Respondent also contends that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id.
On October 24, 2022, Petitioner filed a notice of change of address, indicating that he has been released from custody. Dkt. No. 10.
In light of Petitioner's release from custody, the instant Petition appears moot as Petitioner has been given the relief he seeks in this matter. A federal court's jurisdiction is limited to actual cases or live controversies. Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “[F]ederal courts may not ‘give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions.'” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). “[W]hen an administrative agency has performed the action sought by a plaintiff in litigation, a federal court ‘lacks the ability to grant effective relief,' and the claim is moot.” Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pub. Util. Comm'n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)); see also Arthur v. Milunsic, No. CV 12-10404-DDP (CW), 2013 WL 1890335, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013).
Because Petitioner appears to have obtained the relief he sought by initiating this action, the matter no longer involves a “live controversy.” See Farnsworth v. Tewes, Case No. EDCV 15-02407-JFW (DTB), 2016 WL 1253382, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016) (citing Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (denying petitioner's request for a protective ruling in the event the government raises an argument adverse to petitioner's claim at a later date because the case no longer involved a “live controversy,” rendering the petition moot)). As such, the Petition should be dismissed as moot.
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner must show cause, in writing, on or before November 22, 2022, why this case should not be dismissed on the grounds of mootness. If Petitioner elects not to proceed in this action, he may expedite matters by signing and returning the attached Notice of Dismissal by the foregoing deadline which will result in the voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Petitioner is cautioned that, absent further order of the Court, his failure to timely file a response to this order or a Notice of Dismissal may result in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice on the grounds above or for failure to diligently prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Attachment.