(HC)Campaz-Arroyo v. Warden, FCI Mendota, No. 1:2023cv00883 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant Respondent's 13 Motion to Dismiss and Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/20/2023. Referred to Judge NODJ. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen (14) Days. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWIN CAMPAZ-ARROYO, Petitioner, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT v. 13 14 Case No. 1:23-cv-00883-EPG-HC WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, (ECF No. 13) 15 Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 Petitioner Edwin Campaz-Arroyo is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons stated herein, the 20 undersigned recommends granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the petition as 21 moot. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 In the petition, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) policy of 25 refusing to allow prisoners with immigration detainers or unresolved immigration status to earn 26 First Step Act (“FSA”) Time Credits (“FTCs”) and/or apply FTCs. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent has 27 filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing, inter alia, that there is no case or controversy 28 because Petitioner has earned and applied FTCs resulting in his release from BOP custody. (ECF 1 1 No. 13 at 2.)1 To date, Petitioner has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 2 motion to dismiss, and the time for doing so has passed. 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” 5 6 Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “This case-or-controversy 7 requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings,” which “means that, 8 throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury 9 traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer 10 v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). The record before the Court shows that Petitioner was released from BOP custody on 11 12 October 3, 2023, with fifty-eight days of applied FSA credits. (App. 004–005.)2 Given that 13 Petitioner has received the remedy to which he would have been entitled had this Court rendered 14 a favorable judicial decision on his petition, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists 15 and dismissal is warranted on this ground.3 16 III. 17 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to 18 19 dismiss (ECF No. 13) be GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED 20 as moot. Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly ASSIGN a District Court Judge to 21 22 the present matter. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 23 24 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 25 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 26 1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. “App.” refers to the Appendix filed by Respondent. (ECF No. 13-1.) Appendix page numbers refer to 27 the page numbers stamped at the bottom right corner. 3 As the Court finds that the petition should be dismissed for lack of case or controversy, the Court will 28 not address Respondent’s other grounds for dismissal set forth in the motion to dismiss. 2 2 1 FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 2 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 3 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 4 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 5 assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 6 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 7 the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. 8 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 9 Cir. 1991)). 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 20, 2023 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.