United States District Court, D. Arizona
United States of America, Plaintiff/Respondent.
Christy V. Beltran, Defendant/Petitioner.
HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable John Z. Boyle United States Magistrate Judge
While Defendant was serving a state prison sentence, she was transferred to federal authorities pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. She was held for approximately eight months prior to federal sentencing. The Court sentenced her to 24 months imprisonment with credit for time served. The Federal Bureau of Prisons properly determined she was in state custody prior to sentencing and thus not entitled to time credit between execution of the writ and sentencing. Since the filing of her Motion, Defendant has also been released from custody. As detailed below, the Court recommends Defendant’s Motion to be released from prison be denied because it is moot. The Court also finds her claim fails on the merits.
II. Procedural History
On April 1, 2013, Defendant was sentenced in the State of Arizona to a term of imprisonment. (Doc. 1-1 at 10.) On July 3, 2013, she was transferred from the Arizona Department of Corrections to the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. (CR Doc. 8.) Defendant continued to be held by the USMS pending trial. (CR Doc. 9.) On February 24, 2014, Defendant was sentenced by this Court to 24 months imprisonment, “to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Yavapai County Superior Court Case Number CR201380032, with credit for time served.” (CR Docs. 27, 28.)
On April 30, 2015, Defendant filed the instant Motion challenging the Federal Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) calculation of time served in CR-13-8067-PCT-GMS. (Doc. 1.) On July 28, 2015, the Government filed a Response asserting the Motion should be denied. (Doc. 4.) On September 11, 2015, Defendant filed a Reply. (Doc. 7.)
A petitioner’s claim for habeas corpus relief is moot if the petitioner is no longer in custody and no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (stating the “case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings . . . [and] [t]he parties must continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.”) (internal citations omitted); Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding a habeas petition properly dismissed as moot where there was no legal issue remaining for the court to decide).
Here, Defendant requests that “this Court should order that Beltran should be released by the BOP.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) According to Defendant’s Reply submitted September 11, 2015, Defendant “has been released.” (Doc. 7.) Defendant is no longer in custody. Defendant’s request that she be released from BOP no longer presents a case or controversy under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, and Defendant’s claim for habeas corpus relief is moot. See Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding Defendant’s “petition would have to be dismissed for lack of a case or controversy because he has fully served the period of incarceration that he is attacking.”).
The Government argues Defendant’s Motion should be denied because “Defendant previously waived her claim pursuant to her plea agreement, filed her Motion under the inapplicable Section, failed to exhaust her remedies within BOP, and contests by miscalculation the credit given by BOP.” (Doc. 4.) Here, the Court will only address the calculation of credit for time served because Defendant’s challenge fails on the merits.
Defendant’s sentence began, not surprisingly, after she was sentenced. See Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1248 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that a prisoner’s “federal sentence does not ‘commence’ until after he has been sentenced in federal court”). Defendant was entitled to credit for time served pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § ...