Opinion
3:23-cv-00337-MK
08-16-2023
VENTON SMITH, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL PRISON CAMP SHERIDAN, WARDEN; and FEDERAL PRISON CAMP SHERIDAN, Respondents.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Petitioner files this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) miscalculated earned time credits to which he is entitled under the First Step Act (FSA). After Petitioner filed suit, BOP recalculated Petitioner's earned time credits and has awarded Petitioner the credits he seeks. Accordingly, the Petition is now moot and should be denied.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner is currently serving a 63-month term of imprisonment for offenses including bank fraud, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and passport and identification fraud. Rogowski Decl. ¶ 2(a). Petitioner's current projected release date is November 2, 2023. Id. ¶¶ 2(c), 11.
Under the FSA, eligible inmates with a low risk of recidivism may earn time credits for participating in “evidence-based recidivism reduction programs” and other “productive activities.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4); 28 C.F.R. § 523.42. The FSA authorizes BOP to apply earned time credits to the release dates of inmates and accelerate their release from confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g). Eligible inmates initially earn ten days of credit for every thirty days of successful participation in qualifying programs. Id. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(i). If an inmate maintains a minimum or low risk of recidivism over two consecutive risk and needs assessments, the inmate is eligible to earn an additional five days of credit, for a total of fifteen days of credit, for every thirty days of successful participation. Id. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(ii).
Petitioner contends that, as of December 21, 2022, he was entitled to fifteen days of earned time credit for each month he participated in the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) and that BOP has awarded him only ten days of earned time credit per month. See Pet. at 6-8 (ECF No. 1). Petitioner asks the Court to order BOP to award him earned time credit of fifteen days per month for his participation in RDAP. Id.
In response to the Petition, Respondent agrees that Petitioner is eligible to earn and receive time credits. Rogowski Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 10 & Ex. 3. Respondent also submits evidence showing that Petitioner began earning fifteen days of earned time credit per month as of November 2, 2022. See id. ¶¶ 10-11 & Ex. 3. Accordingly, Respondent argues that Petitioner has received the relief he seeks, and the Petition should be dismissed as moot.
“The case or controversy requirement of Article III . . . deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear moot cases.” Native Vill. of Nuiqsut v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 9 F.4th 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). “A claim is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Pizzuto v. Tewalt, 997 F.3d 893, 903 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). “A case that becomes moot at any point during the proceedings is ‘no longer a “Case” or “Controversy” for purposes of Article III,' and is outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts.” United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S.Ct. 1532, 1537 (2018) (citation omitted). The question of whether a case is “live” typically depends on whether a court can grant effective relief should it address the merits of the case. Native Vill. of Nuiqsut, 9 F.4th at 1208. “If an event occurs that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and must be dismissed.” Am. Rivers v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997).
The FSA Time Credit Assessment provided by Respondent shows that, since November 2, 2022, BOP has been applying a Time Credit Factor of fifteen days to Petitioner's earned time credits. Rogowski Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. 3. Accordingly, Petitioner is receiving the habeas relief he seeks, and his claim appears to be moot.
Petitioner does not dispute that his claim regarding earned time credit is moot. Instead, Petitioner requests that this Court hold an “emergency hearing” to review the efficacy of BOP's administrative remedy procedures. See Pet'r Obj. to Response (ECF No. 8). Petitioner's request does not implicate the execution or duration of his sentence and is not cognizable in a § 2241 Petition. See Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891 (9th Cir. 1979) (reiterating that “the writ of habeas corpus is limited to attacks upon the legality or duration of confinement”). Moreover, Petitioner has been released from confinement at FCI Sheridan and any request for injunctive relief regarding BOP's administrative remedy process is also moot. Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that an inmate's release from prison will generally moot pending claims for injunctive relief).
In sum, Petitioner is receiving the habeas relief he seeks, and there is no further relief that this Court can provide. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied. Moreno v. Brewer, 2023 WL 3794814, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2023) (finding as moot a habeas petition seeking FSA earned time credits because the Court could grant “no further relief' after the petitioner was released).
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions for Emergency Hearing (ECF Nos. 8, 9, 10) are DENIED.
Further, Petitioner has obtained the habeas relief he seeks in this action, and the Petition (ECF No. 1) should be DENIED on grounds of mootness.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The parties may file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this recommendation. If an objection is filed, any response to the objection is due within fourteen (14) days from the date of the objection. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).