From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. Fox

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jul 14, 2014
CV 14-742 JFW (MRW) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2014)

Opinion


REGINALD STEWART, Petitioner, v. JACK FOX, Warden, Respondent. No. CV 14-742 JFW (MRW). United States District Court, C.D. California. July 14, 2014.

          ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDIC

          JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.

         The Court vacates the reference of this action to the Magistrate Judge and grants the government's unopposed motion to dismiss this case as moot.

         * * *

         Petitioner is a federal prisoner at FCI Lompoc. He filed a habeas action in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a prison disciplinary action that caused the forfeiture of good time credits. (Docket #1, 4.) After Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the petition and a supplemental statement regarding the claim, the petition was served on the government for a response. (Docket #5.)

         The government subsequently informed the Court that the Bureau of Prisons "expunged" the disciplinary determination and restored Petitioner's good time credits. (Docket #8 at 1-3.) On that basis, the government moved to dismiss the action as moot.

         The Court directed Petitioner to respond to the government's motion by either (a) voluntarily dismissing the action or (b) responding to the merits of the government's dismissal motion. (Docket #9.) Petitioner did neither, however, and has filed nothing in response to the government's motion or the Court's order to show cause in the intervening months.

         * * *

         The government acknowledges that it provided Petitioner with the relief he sought by his habeas action - restoration of good time credits - after he filed this federal action. As a result, the habeas action is moot because the Court cannot order further relief in response to his petition. See, e.g., Walker v. Sanders, 385 F.App'x 747 (9th Cir. 2010) (inmate placed in RRC after filing of habeas petition seeking RRC placement presented moot petition).

         Moreover, Local Rule of Court 7-12 states that, after a party files a motion with the Court, the failure to file a required response "may be deemed consent to the granting [ ] of the motion." That rule fully applies to the present dismissal motion. Petitioner's failure to respond to the mootness motion signifies his consent to the dismissal of the case. Therefore, this action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Stewart v. Fox

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jul 14, 2014
CV 14-742 JFW (MRW) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2014)
Case details for

Stewart v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD STEWART, Petitioner, v. JACK FOX, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Jul 14, 2014

Citations

CV 14-742 JFW (MRW) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2014)