(HC) Arnette v Anderson et al, No. 2:2010cv02407 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 3/22/2012 ORDERING the clerk to assign a district judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING that respondent's 11 motion to dismiss be granted and the 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. Assigned and Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Arnette v Anderson et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DAVID LEE ARNETTE, 10 Petitioner, 11 No. CIV 2:10-cv-2407-JFM (HC) vs. 12 MARTY C. ANDERSON, 13 ORDER AND Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 14 Pending before the court is respondent’s December 28, 2011 motion to dismiss. 15 16 On February 7, 2012, petitioner was ordered to show cause why the motion to dismiss should not 17 be granted. Petitioner has not responded to the court order. 18 On November 19, 2009, petitioner pled “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity” to a 19 single charge of bank robbery. Pet. at 2. In the pending petition, petitioner does not challenge 20 the validity of his plea; he only challenges his continued detention. Respondent now seeks 21 dismissal of the petition on the ground that, on August 17, 2011, petitioner was released from 22 federal custody. In support, respondent submits a computer printout from the Federal Bureau of 23 Prisons’ Inmate Locator website1, which denotes petitioner’s custody status as “Released.” See 24 Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1. 25 26 1 The Internet address for this website is http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal jurisdiction is limited 2 to actual, ongoing “cases” or “controversies.” U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Spencer v. 3 Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). A claim is moot when “the issues presented are no longer live” 4 and there exists no “present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” Outdoor 5 Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Vill. of 6 Gambell v. Babbitt, 999 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir. 1993)). To maintain a claim, a litigant must 7 continue to have a personal stake in all stages of the judicial proceeding. Abdala v. INS, 488 8 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). 9 The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus “is to secure immediate release from 10 illegal physical custody.” Picrin–Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). The only 11 power the court has to effectuate relief in a habeas petition is “the power to release” the 12 petitioner from incarceration. Id. (internal citation omitted). When a petitioner is released from 13 the custody of which he complains, there is no further relief a habeas court can grant and the 14 habeas petition is moot. Picrin–Person, 930 F.2d at 776. Here, because petitioner was released 15 from custody in August 2011, this court can provide no further redress. As such, the petition is 16 moot and respondent’s motion should be granted. 17 18 19 20 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 23 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 24 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 25 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 26 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 2 1 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 2 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: March 22, 2012. 4 5 6 7 /014;arne2407.mtd 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
