(HC) Lacy v. Tilton et al, No. 2:2008cv00926 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/1/09 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 15 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Lacy v. Tilton et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DENNIS EVERETT LACY, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 vs. JAMES TILTON, et al., Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 No. CIV S-08-0926 FCD EFB P Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 17 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents have moved to dismiss the action on the ground that petitioner fails 18 to state a claim. However, petitioner has since been released and it appears that this action has 19 become moot and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fielder v. Clark, 20 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983) (district court may dismiss an action sua sponte whenever it 21 appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). 22 I. Facts 23 On May 1, 2008, petitioner filed a habeas petition challenging the accuracy with which 24 corrections officials calculated the time credits to which he was entitled. He argued that officials 25 in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations arbitrarily and erroneously 26 determined the amount of credits to which he was entitled under California law. Thus, he 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 argued, his release date was sooner than the date reflected in his corrections records. The 2 docket shows, however, that petitioner was released from prison in February 2009. 3 II. 4 Standards Under Article III of the federal Constitution, a federal court has jurisdiction to entertain a 5 matter only if there is a “case or controversy.” The issues must remain “live,” meaning there 6 must be an actual case or controversy, throughout all stages of the proceeding. Lewis v. 7 Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). An action becomes moot, and a federal 8 court thus loses jurisdiction over it, when the issues no longer are live, i.e., when the parties lack 9 a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). 10 In other words, a federal court does not have power to decide a matter that does not affect the 11 rights of litigants in the case before it. Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477-78; Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 12 517, 527-28 (9th Cir. 1996). A petitioner must have suffered an actual injury that is traceable to 13 the respondent and can be redressed by a favorable decision. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8, 14 14 (1998). A federal court may entertain a case that is moot only if the matter is “capable of 15 repetition yet evading review.” Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 III. Analysis 17 Here, petitioner was incarcerated at the time he filed the petition. His only claim is that 18 corrections officials miscalculated the time credits to which he was entitled. As a consequence, 19 the date they planned to release him was later than what the petitioner believed should be. The 20 Ninth Circuit has held that the release of a prisoner challenging the loss of time credits renders 21 the pending habeas petition moot. Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir. 2002). The 22 only relief available from the court on such a petition is an assurance that the prisoner is granted 23 all the credits to which he is entitled, thereby accelerating his release date. Id. In other words, 24 the court cannot grant any meaningful relief if a prisoner making such a challenge is released 25 “because he has fully served the period of incarceration that he is attacking.” Id. at 876. Here, 26 petitioner claims that he is entitled to more time credits than corrections officials are willing to 2 1 grant. If he were to prevail on this claim, the court could only order a recalculation using correct 2 standards, thereby accelerating his release date. Since petitioner already has been released, there 3 is no injury that can be redressed by a favorable decision from this court. 4 There remains the question of whether the court retains jurisdiction because the matter is 5 capable of repetition yet evading review. A case is capable of repetition yet evading review if 6 (1) the challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its expiration, and 7 (2) there is a reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that the same complaining party 8 would be subjected to the same action again. Spencer, 523 U.S. at17-18. It is doubtful petitioner 9 could demonstrate “that the time between [arbitrary assessment of time credits] and [release from 10 prison] is always so short as to evade review.” Id. at 18. Furthermore, without arguing that he is 11 likely to misbehave, petitioner simply cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that he will be 12 reincarcerated and subjected to the same injury. 13 IV. 14 15 16 17 18 Conclusion For the reasons explained, this case is moot and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 24 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 Dated: September 1, 2009. 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.
