Opinion
2:23-CV-2430-DMC
06-12-2024
RAYMOND DENIS WOODS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 7.
Facts are derived from various court records provided by Respondent in the Appendix filed in support of the motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 7-1. The Court may take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of matters of public record. See U.S. v. 14.02 Acres of Land, 530 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008).
In 2015, Petitioner was charged in the United States District Court for the Central District of California with being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See ECF No. 7-1 (Appendix). Petitioner pleaded guilty was sentenced to 46 months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) with 287 days of prior credit for his time spent in jail. See id. Petitioner's projected release date was January 11, 2024, and Petitioner was in fact released on that date. See id. at 6. In the instant federal petition, Petitioner seeks relief under the First Step Act (FSA). See ECF No. 1.
Though Petitioner has been released, the Court's docket continues to reflect his former address at Federal Correctional Institution - Herlong. This is most likely due to Petitioner's failure to file a notice of change of address following his release in January 2024.
II. DISCUSSION
In the unopposed motion to dismiss, Respondent argues this case must be dismissed because Petitioner has been released from custody, rendering this case moot. See ECF No. 7. The Court agrees. Petitioner's BOP records reflect that Petitioner was released from custody on January 11, 2024. See ECF No. 7-1, pg. 6. Absent collateral consequences of the conviction, which are not alleged here, a “habeas petition does not continue to present a live controversy once the petitioner is released from custody.” Kelley v. Brewer, 2023 WL 2992823, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023) (“there is nothing capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial decision because the BOP has already released [the petitioner]"). Because Petitioner's release in January 2024 rendered this case moot, the Court does not address Respondent's argument that the petition must also be dismissed because Petitioner was statutorily ineligible to receive discretionary relief under the FSA.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows:
1. It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assigned a District Judge to this case.
2. It is ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for an expedited decision, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED insofar as the Court herein recommends dismissal of the petition as moot.
3. It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, be GRANTED and that this action be dismissed as moot.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).