Carlos Isaac Barrientos v. Joseph Norwood, No. 2:2008cv03580 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and Order by Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman (ade)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 WESTERN DIVISION 8 9 CARLOS ISAAC BARRIENTOS, 10 Petitioner, 11 v. 12 JOSEPH NORWOOD, Warden, 13 14 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 08-3580-MLG MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 15 16 On June 2, 2008, Petitioner, a federal prisoner then incarcerated 17 at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville, California, filed 18 this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 Petitioner alleged that he was illegally being denied the right to 20 participate in the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP). 21 This, in turn, denied him the right to a sentence reduction under 18 22 U.S.C. § 3621(e), a reduction to which inmates who successfully 23 complete the program are eligible. 24 On August 1, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the 25 petition, claiming that the petition was moot because on June 11, 26 2008, the Bureau of Prisons had determined that Petitioner was 27 eligible for placement in a RDAP and was provisionally eligible for 28 early release under section 3621. 1 On August 4, 2008, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner 2 to inform the Court, no later than August 18, 2008, whether he 3 consented 4 ordered, in the alternative, to file a brief in opposition to the 5 motion to dismiss no later than September 2, 2008. Petitioner has done 6 neither. to dismissal of the petition. Petitioner was further 7 Respondent s motion to dismiss must be granted. A claim is moot 8 when the issues presented are no longer live and there exists no 9 present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted. 10 Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900 (9th 11 Cir. 2007)(quoting Vill. Of Gambell v. Babbityt, 999 F.2d 403, 406 12 (9th Cir. 1993). The case or controversy requirement of Article III, 13 § 2 subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, 14 trial and appellate.... The parties must continue to have a personal 15 stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 16 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 17 (1990)), see also Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 18 2005). Throughout the litigation, the plaintiff must have suffered, 19 or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant 20 which is able to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Id. 21 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case where the ability to 22 grant the relief requested no longer exists, there must be some 23 concrete and continuing injury or some collateral consequence of the 24 alleged violation if the suit is to be maintained. Id. In such cases, 25 the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that such consequences 26 exist. Id. at 10-11, 14. 27 Here, there is no longer any relief available to Petitioner. He 28 has been found eligible for participation in the RDAP. He is also 2 1 eligible to receive a sentence reduction if he successfully completes 2 the program. The relief sought by Petitioner has already been granted. 3 There are no live issues and the case is moot. 4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent s motion to dismiss 5 be GRANTED. 6 Dated: September 5, 2008 7 8 9 ______________________________ Marc L. Goldman United States Magistrate Judge 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.
