(HC) Luna-Campos v. Benov, No. 1:2013cv01193 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED for mootness; re 18 MOTION to DISMISS filed by Michael L. Benov ; referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/3/14. Objections to F&R due by 7/7/2014 (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORENZO LUNA-CAMPOS, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:13-cv-01193-AWI-GSA-HC Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS v. MICHAEL L. BENOV, [ECF NO. 18] Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 On July 31, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. 20 Respondent filed an answer on October 28, 2013, and Petitioner filed a traverse on November 21 14, 2013. He contends his due process rights were violated during a disciplinary process because 22 an individual not employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons sanctioned Petitioner with a loss of 23 good conduct time credits based on an incident report for misconduct. 24 On May 2, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. Petitioner 25 did not file an opposition. 26 27 DISCUSSION The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives 28 the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 1 1 70 (1983); NAACP., W. Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A 2 case becomes moot if “the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally 3 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal 4 Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before 5 them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. 6 Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)). The instant petition is moot since Petitioner has been released from custody, and there is 7 8 no further relief this Court can grant. Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 1, Klein Decl., at ¶ 2; Fed. 9 Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited May 8, 2014) 10 (showing Petitioner released on April 18, 2014).1 RECOMMENDATION 11 Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 12 13 be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED for mootness. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 14 15 United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and 16 Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 17 California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections 20 shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will 21 then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 22 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 23 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 26 27 28 June 3, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 1 The Court hereby takes judicial notice of the inmate locator database maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which is a matter of public record. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) . 2 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 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.