(HC) Isaac Jones v. Young, No. 1:2019cv00411 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER vacating Findings and Recommendations 20 ; Findings and Recommendations to dismiss Petition as moot 11 signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 7/9/2021. Referred to Judge NONE; Objections to F&R's due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAAC JONES, 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. 1:19-cv-00411-NONE-HBK Petitioner, ORDER TO VACATE APRIL 14, 2021 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. (Doc. No. 20) S. YOUNG, Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 17 18 Petitioner Isaac Jones, a Bureau of Prison’s (BOP) inmate, is proceeding pro se on his 19 amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed on April 10, 2020. 20 (Doc. No. 11, “Petition”). In response, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 21 No. 15). The undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion 22 to dismiss on April 14, 2021. (Doc. No. 20, “F&R”). Although Petitioner did not file objections, 23 the undersigned vacates the April 14, 2021 F&R because Petitioner’s release from BOP after he 24 filed the Petition but before the F&R issued moots the Petition. 25 26 27 I. BACKGROUND The Petition sets forth one ground for relief: Petitioner’s due process rights were violated in connection with his August 15, 2017 prison disciplinary hearing conducted while he was 28 1 1 incarcerated at the Federal Corrections Institution Victorville. (See generally Doc. No. 11). At 2 the disciplinary hearing it was determined that Petitioner refused to provide a urine sample, in 3 violation of BOP Code 110. (Doc. 11 at 22; Doc. No. 15-1 at 68). Petitioner was sanctioned with 4 the loss of 41 days good time credit and three months loss of privileges. (Doc. No. 11 at 21; Doc. 5 No. 15-1 at 69). Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner failed to show 6 the disciplinary hearing violated his due process rights. (See generally Doc. No. 15). The 7 undersigned issued findings and recommendations finding the disciplinary hearing did not violate 8 Petitioner’s due process rights and recommending Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. 9 (Doc. No. 20). 10 The Court has reviewed the docket in Petitioner’s underlying criminal case from the 11 Northern District of Ohio and takes judicial notice of it under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See 12 U.S. v. Jones, No. 5:15-cr-00108 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2015). On January 22, 2021, the Northern 13 District of Ohio granted Petitioner compassionate release from BOP’s custody reducing his 14 sentence “to time served.” (Id., Doc. No. 56). 15 16 II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS Article III, § 2, of the Constitution requires the existence of a case or controversy through 17 all stages of federal judicial proceedings. Therefore, throughout the litigation the petitioner “must 18 have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the [respondent] and likely to be 19 redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 20 (1990). “[I]f it appears that [the court is] without power to grant the relief requested, then the 21 case is moot.” Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 “An incarcerated convict’s (or a parolee’s) challenge to the validity of his conviction 23 always satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration (or the restriction 24 imposed by the terms of the parole) constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and 25 redressable by invalidation of the conviction.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). “Once 26 the convict’s sentence has expired, however, some concrete and continuing injury other than the 27 now-ended incarceration or parole -- some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist 28 if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. Collateral consequences are presumed where the petitioner 2 1 challenges the validity of his underlying conviction. Id. at 7-8. However, collateral 2 consequences are not presumed where the petitioner challenges a disciplinary finding. See 3 Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2003) (no presumed collateral consequence from 4 prison disciplinary proceedings). In such cases, a petitioner must demonstrate that he is suffering 5 from collateral consequences in order to prevent his case from being rendered moot. Id. 6 Here, Petitioner was released from custody. The Petition challenges only the findings of 7 the 2017 disciplinary hearing which resulted in a loss of good time credits. Petitioner does not 8 argue that the findings of his disciplinary hearing will result in any current collateral 9 consequences, and the undersigned independently cannot conceive of any collateral 10 consequences. Indeed, the Northern District Court of Ohio identified Petitioner’s “clean prison 11 disciplinary record for the last year” as one of the factors to grant compassionate release. See 12 U.S. v. Jones, No. 5:15-cr-00108 (Doc. No. 56 at 3). The undersigned finds the Petition is moot 13 and recommends it be dismissed accordingly. Considering this finding, the undersigned vacates 14 the April 14, 2021 F&R. (Doc. No. 20). 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 The April 14, 2021 Findings and Recommendations are vacated. (Doc. No. 20). 17 Further, it is RECOMMENDED: 18 1. The Petition (Doc. No. 11) be dismissed as moot. 19 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 15) be dismissed as moot. 20 21 NOTICE TO PARTIES These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 23 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 24 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 25 Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 26 27 28 3 1 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 2 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 5 Dated: July 9, 2021 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 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 4

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.