1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEOBARDO CHAVEZ Case No. 2:24-cv-00066-KK-PD

BARRIENTOS,

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING 13

PETITION WITHOUT

v. 14 PREJUDICE AS MOOT

WARDEN F.C.C. LOMPOC, ET AL.,

15 Respondents. 16

17

18 On January 2, 2024, Leobardo Chavez Barrientos (“Petitioner”), 19 proceeding pro se and at that time incarcerated at the Federal Correctional 20 Institution in Lompoc, California (“FCI-Lompoc”), filed a petition pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming that the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) unlawfully 22 refused to apply First Step Act (“FSA”) credits to his sentence. [Dkt. No. 1.] 23 Petitioner contends that his immigration status is unclear, he lawfully 24 entered the United States on September 4, 2015, he is subject only to an 25 immigration detainer, not a final order of removal, and the BOP improperly 26 refused to apply his FSA credits.1 [Id. at 8.] The government filed a motion to 27

28 1 Petitioner filed a separate action in this district regarding the denial of his 1 dismiss, Petitioner filed an opposition, the government replied, and Petitioner 2 filed a response to the reply. [Dkt. Nos. 10, 15, 16, 17.] 3 Petitioner was released from the BOP on August 9, 2024. See Fed. R. 4 Evid. 201; Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, 5 https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed Sept. 3, 2024); Fed. R. Evid. 6 201. On August 7, 2024, Petitioner filed a Notice of Change of Address 7 providing his new, noncustodial address. [Dkt. No. 18.] 8

I. Petitioner’s Claim is Moot

9 Article III of the Constitution “limits the jurisdiction of the federal 10 courts to live cases and controversies.” Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 951 11 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 12 193, 199 (1988) (“Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to the 13 adjudication of actual, ongoing controversies between litigants.”). An actual 14 case or controversy exists when, throughout the litigation, a petitioner 15 continues to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit and suffers 16 some actual injury that is likely to be “redressed by a favorable judicial 17 decision.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citations omitted). When, 18 because of events that occur after a case is initiated, a court cannot give any 19 effectual relief in favor of the petitioner, the proceeding becomes moot. 20 Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (citation omitted). Since 21 mootness is a jurisdictional bar, moot petitions should be dismissed. Kittel, 22 620 F.3d at 951–52. 23 Petitioner requests his release based on credits he alleges he earned 24 under the FSA. [See Dkt. No. 1.] While release from detention does not 25

26 Security, et al., 2:24-cv-04391-KK-PD. An Order Transferring Petition to the Ninth Circuit for Initial Review Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) was issued on June 28, 27 2024. [Dkt. No. 8.] The petition for review and motion to stay removal are pending 28 in the Ninth Circuit, which issued a briefing schedule on August 19, 2024. See 1 necessarily moot a habeas petition, the petition “is generally rendered moot” if 2 it is the only relief requested. Salazar v. United States, 2023 WL 2993031, at 3 *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2023) (citing Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 4 (9th Cir. 1991) (“By his petition for habeas corpus, [petitioner] has requested 5 only release from custody. Because he has been released, there is no further 6 relief we can provide.”). Petitioner was released on August 9, 2024; 7 consequently, there is no further relief that this Court can provide. See Pierce 8 v. Thomas, 400 F. App’x 259, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2010) (“Like the district 9 court, we conclude that because [petitioner] was already transferred to a 10 residential reentry center…his claim is moot. Indeed, at this point [petitioner] 11 is out of the custody of the Bureau of Prisons altogether.”). 12 There is an exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are 13 “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 17. 14 However, this exception is limited to extraordinary cases where (1) the 15 duration of the challenged action is too short to allow for full litigation before 16 it ends, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the petitioner will be subjected to the challenged action again. Id. 17 Petitioner has not alleged or shown that there is a reasonable 18 expectation his FSA credits could be miscalculated again. Moreover, 19 Petitioner has already been released from BOP custody. As such, the Petition 20 should be dismissed as moot. 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Il Order For the reasons set forth above, this action is dismissed without 3 prejudice as moot. ‘ IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 16, 2024 bu KM

HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO.

9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28