1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8 GRULLON FRANCISCO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00105-SAB-HC

9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING

10 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING

11 WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE

12 Respondent. (ECF No. 12)

13 14 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 16 Judge. (ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9.) 17 I. 18 BACKGROUND 19 In the petition, Petitioner challenges a Federal Bureau of Prisons’ policy that excludes 20 inmates with immigration detainers, such as Petitioner, from applying their First Step Act 21 (“FSA”) Earned Time Credits (“FTCs”). (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner requests that the Court direct 22 the Federal Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) to immediately calculate and apply all of the FTCs to 23 which he is entitled. (Id. at 7.)1 Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition, asserting (among 24 other grounds) that there is no case or controversy because Petitioner has been awarded FTCs 25 that were applied and resulted in his release from BOP custody. (ECF No. 12 at 2–3.) To date, 26 Petitioner has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss, 27 and the time for doing so has passed. 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to 4 | “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 5 | (1990). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial 6 | proceedings,” which “means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or 7 | be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a 8 | favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. 9 | at 477). 10 Here, the record establishes that Petitioner was released from BOP custody on March 8, 11 | 2023, with 365 days of applied FSA credits. (App. 044-045.)? Given that Petitioner has received 12 | the remedy he requested in his petition, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists and 13 | dismissal is warranted on this ground.? 14 II. 15 ORDER 16 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 17 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED; 18 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and 19 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 22 | Dated: _ June 28, 2023 _ Of 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 2 “App.” refers to the Appendix filed by Respondent on April 25, 2023. (ECF No. 12-1.) Appendix page numbers 27 | refer to the page numbers stamped at the bottom right corner. 3 Tn light of this conclusion, the Court declines to address Respondent’s other grounds for dismissal set forth in the 28 | motion to dismiss.