Opinion
Case No. 3:20-cv-01768-MK
06-21-2021
MICHAEL AARON RIVERA-SEARS, Petitioner, v. DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and challenges the loss of good conduct credits arising from an incident report and disciplinary hearing. Petitioner maintains that the proceedings failed to comport with the requirements of due process and the evidence did not support the alleged rule violation. Petitioner seeks the expungement of the incident report and the restoration of his good conduct credits.
Respondent moves for dismissal of the Petition on grounds of mootness. Respondent maintains that petitioner has already obtained the relief sought in this action, because the incident report has been expunged and his seven days of good conduct time have been restored. Morales Decl. ¶ 6 & Exs. B, C. Respondent contends that this Court cannot provide any further relief to petitioner and lacks jurisdiction over the Petition. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (explaining that a case is moot and a court lacks jurisdiction over it "when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome") (citation omitted); Yagman v. Thomas, 612 Fed. App'x 408, 409 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2015) (finding that a § 2241 proceeding became moot after the challenged disciplinary proceedings were vacated, "because there was no further relief that could have been given").
Petitioner did not respond to respondent's motion. Based on the undisputed record before this Court, petitioner has obtained the relief he seeks, and this action is now moot. See Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 92 (2009) (holding that an "actual controversy" must exist through "all stages" of the litigation).
CONCLUSION
Respondent's Motion for to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) should be GRANTED and this action should be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The parties may file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this recommendation. If an objection is filed, any response to the objection is due within fourteen (14) days from the date of the objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
DATED this 21st day of June 2021.
s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (He / Him)
United States Magistrate Judge