(HC) Hawkesworth v. Adler et al, No. 1:2009cv00693 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/1/2010, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 10/4/2010. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

(HC) Hawkesworth v. Adler et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 THOMAS HAWKESWORTH, 10 11 1:09-cv-00693 AWI GSA HC Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 12 MICHAEL BENOV, Warden, 13 Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent, Michael Benov,1 is represented in this action by the 17 United States Attorney. 18 Petitioner is currently serving a 57-month sentence for wire fraud in violation of 18 19 U.S.C. § 1343, knowingly engaging in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a 20 value greater than $10,000 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and aiding and abetting in violation 21 of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). His projected release date is October 15, 2010. 22 On April 20, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. He 23 complains that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has failed to transfer him to a Community 24 Corrections Center (CCC) in violation of his due process rights. He claims the BOP improperly 25 made its determination based on the amount of time left in Petitioner’s sentence. 26 27 28 1 Neil Adler is no longer the W arden at Taft Correctional Institution. The current warden is Michael Benov. Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby substitutes Michael Benov as Respondent. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On July 8, 2010, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. Respondent contends the 2 case is now moot because Petitioner has been evaluated and confirmed for placement and 3 transfer to a CCC. Petitioner has not filed a traverse. 4 5 DISCUSSION The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the 6 Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 7 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A 8 case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally 9 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal 10 Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before 11 them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. 12 v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937). 13 The instant petition is moot because Petitioner has been granted the relief he seeks, to wit, 14 transfer to a CCC. On June 23, 2010, Petitioner was evaluated in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 15 § 3624(c) as amended by the Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199. Petitioner was 16 confirmed for placement in a CCC in Las Vegas, Nevada, and he is scheduled for transfer on 17 September 14, 2010. (See Resp’t’s Answer Attach. 4.) Petitioner has received consideration for 18 placement and has been granted that placement. The case is moot and should be dismissed. 19 20 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for a writ of habeas 21 corpus be DENIED. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED 22 to enter judgment for Respondent. 23 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge, pursuant 24 to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after date of service of the 25 Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a 26 copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's 27 Findings and Recommendation." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 28 fourteen days after date of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 1 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 2 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij September 1, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.