1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE EVAN PETERSEN, Case No. 2:20-cv-01914-RGK-MAA 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

AS MOOT AND DISMISSING

13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 14 P. BRADLEY, Warden,1 DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

AS MOOT

15 Respondent. 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 19 On February 27, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Section 2241”) (“Petition”). (Pet., ECF No. 1.) 21 Petitioner raises one claim for Section 2241 relief: that the Bureau of Prisons 22 (“BOP”) exceeded its authority in placing him at the United States Penitentiary in 23 Lompoc, California (“USP-Lompoc”). (Pet. 2–3.2) He states that prison staff 24 members in the psychiatric unit told him that he would not be safe in the prison 25

26 1 P. Bradley, the current Warden of the United States Penitentiary Lompoc, is 27 substituted as Respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 2 Pinpoint citations in this Order refer to the page numbers appearing in the ECF- 28 generated headers of the parties’ filings. 1 yard at USP-Lompoc because the inmates there have a policy of assaulting sexual 2 offenders. (Id. at 3.) 3 On April 24, 2020, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition, 4 including a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and supporting Exhibits. (Mot. 5 to Dismiss, ECF No. 13; Exs., ECF No. 13-1.) On July 15, 2020, Petitioner filed an 6 Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Opp’n, ECF No. 19.) 7 On September 1, 2020, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action issued a 8 Report and Recommendation recommending granting the Motion to Dismiss and 9 dismissing the Petition without prejudice on the ground that the BOP’s discretionary 10 determination to place Petitioner at USP-Lompoc is not subject to judicial review. 11 (Rep. & Recommendation, ECF No. 21.) 12 However, on October 1, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued an order 13 withdrawing the Report and Recommendation and ordering Petitioner to show cause 14 by no later than November 23, 2020 why the Petition should not be dismissed as 15 moot in light of Petitioner’s transfer from USP-Lompoc to a different BOP facility.3 16 (Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), ECF No. 24.) To date, Petitioner has not filed a 17 response to this OSC. 18 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Federal courts are barred from hearing matters in the absence of a live case or 21 controversy. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 22 To meet the case or controversy requirement of Article III, the parties must 23 continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit throughout the 24 proceedings. Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003). “If an event 25 occurs that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and 26 27 3 The Court sent a courtesy copy of this Order to Show Cause to Petitioner’s new address at FCI Pollock Federal Correctional Institution. (See OSC 2–3; see also 28 Notice of Change of Address, ECF No. 26.) 1 || must be dismissed.” Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 2 |} 1123 (9th Cir. 1997). 3 In this case, Petitioner challenged his placement at USP-Lompoc, alleging 4 || that he was likely to be assaulted by other prisoners at that facility on account of his 5 || status as a sexual offender. (Pet. 2-3; Opp’n 3-7.) Petitioner has not challenged 6 || his new placement or raised any allegations regarding a risk of assault at FCI- 7 || Pollock, nor has he filed any response to the Court’s OSC. Thus, by transferring 8 || Petitioner to FCI-Pollock, the BOP already has granted Petitioner the relief sought 9 || in the Petition, and it is now “impossible for the [C]ourt to grant any effectual relief 10 || whatever.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) 11 || (citation and quotation marks omitted). 12 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED as moot 13 || and this Action is DISMISSED without prejudice. In light of this dismissal, it is 14 || further ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. 15 16 | DATED: December 11, 2020 17 d k Q, 18 I ates 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 || Presented by: 22 03 (yo 24 | MARIA A. AUDERO — 25 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28