Hirano v. Zhang
| Decision Date | 25 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 19-00355 LEK-RT |
| Parties | DOUGLAS A. HIRANO, Plaintiff, v. LUCY ZHANG, DIRECTOR, RRC; Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Before the Court is Plaintiff Douglas A. Hirano's ("Petitioner") Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Petition"). ECF No. 1. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing.
Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the Court will liberally construe his pleadings. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). After careful review of the parties' submissions, the records in this case, and the applicable law, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the Petition should be DISMISSED. The Court does not have jurisdiction to decide this case, and under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), this Court need not consider the Petition. The Court further finds that a certificate of appealability should be DENIED.
Petitioner challenges the calculation and restoration of his good time conduct credits pursuant to the First Step Act ("First Step Act" or "Act"). Petitioner states that prior to the Act, his release date was December 12, 2019. Petitioner argues that under the First Step Act, his new maximum release date should be July 25, 2019 because he has 138 days of good time credit. However, the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") determined that Petitioner's release date is September 19, 2019, which according to Petitioner, shows that he has lost 54 days of earned good time credits. Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence.
On September 9, 2019, the United States of America ("United States"), on behalf of Respondent Lucy Zhang, Director, Mahoney Honey Hale Residential Reentry Center, filed a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Response"). ECF No. 7. The United States points out that Petitioner had filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in United States District Court of the District of Colorado ("Colorado District Court") that raises the same issue that Petitioner raises in this case. The Colorado District Court in Hirano v. Williams, No. 1:19-cv-00803-GPG (D. Col. Aug. 30, 2019), determined that under the Act, the statutory release date of September 19, 2019 is correct. The United States thus argues that the Petition is a successive writ and should be dismissed.
On October 22, 2019, the United States filed a Notice of Re-Calculation of Petitioner's Projected Release Date ("Notice"). ECF No. 11. The Notice states that Petitioner's projected release date was recalculated from September 19, 2019 toDecember 12, 2019 because of several instances of misconduct, which occurred on August 2019. Id. The United States explains that the August 2019 instances of misconduct are unrelated to the issues raised in the Petition. Id. As such, the United States argues that Petitioner may not challenge the newly calculated release date through the pending Petition. Id.
"Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, habeas corpus relief is available to a federal prisoner in custody under the authority of the United States if he can show he is 'in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'" Blankenship v. Meeks, CV. No. 11-00443 DAE-KSC, 2011 WL 4527408 at *2 (D. Haw. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), (3)). "[A] petitioner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of the execution of [a] sentence is required to bring a petition of writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241." Id. (citations omitted). See also, United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990) (). Here, the Petition is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the Petitioner is challenging the calculation of his release date. "Under § 2241, a habeas corpus petition must be brought in the judicial district of the petitioner's custodian." Id. (citation omitted). The Petition is properly brought in this judicial district because Petitioner is in custody at the Federal Detention Center, Honolulu. See ECF No. 9; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2019).
The district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts ("Habeas Rule"), Rule 4, is applicable to § 2241 through Habeas Rule 1(b). Under Rule 4, "If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition . . . " Habeas Rule, 4. The district court should not dismiss a habeas petition "without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted." Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (citing Pembrook v. Wilson, 370 F.2d 37, 39, n.4 (9th Cir. 1966); Wilson v. Wilson, 372 F.2d 211, 212 (9th Cir. 1967)).
In this case, an order to show cause is not necessary because Petitioner is not entitled to relief for two reasons: (1) there is no case or controversy such that leave to amend would be appropriate; and (2) the exact issue before this Court has already been determined by a court of the United States in a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. Further, the Petition should be dismissed without leave to amend as there is no tenable claim for relief that can be plead if leave to amend were granted.
This Court does not have jurisdiction to review this case. Article III of the United States Constitution restricts federal court jurisdiction to cases in which standing has been established. See Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 508 U.S. 656, 663-64 (1993). "The doctrine ofstanding is 'an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III." Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). To establish standing:
a party seeking to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction must demonstrate three things: (1) "injury in fact," by which [is] mean[t] an invasion of a legally protected interest that is "(a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical"; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, by which [is] mean[t] that the injury "fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant," and has not resulted "from the independent action of some third party not before the court"; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, by which [is] mean[t] that the "prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling" is not "too speculative."
Id. (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984)) (internal citations omitted). When the Petition was filed on July 5, 2019, Petitioner was in custody at Mahoney Hale, 909 Kaamahu Place, Honolulu Hawaii 96817. ECF No. 1. He claimed that his release date set for September 19, 2019 was incorrect and that under the First Step Act, his release date should be July 20, 2019. Id. Petitioner's original release date prior to enactment of the Act was December 12, 2019. Id. Indeed, when the Petition was filed, Petitioner had standing. Petitioner claimed he suffered an injury due to the miscalculation of his release date, he alleged a causal connection between his injury and the alleged miscalculation, and his injury would have been resolved by a favorable decision by the court.
However, "[t]o qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the [petition] is filed." Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 45 (1997) (citing Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)). See also Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341-42 (2006) (). The Court finds that Petitioner's circumstances have changed since the Petition was filed. The United States' Notice states that due to several instances of misconduct in August 2019, Petitioner's projected release date was changed from September 19, 2019 to December 12, 2019. ECF No. 11. Indeed, Petitioner is currently in custody even though Petitioner's purported July date as well as the September release date have passed.
When circumstances change while a case is pending such that "the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome," then "a case is moot." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 497 (1969) (citation omitted). "The doctrine of mootness, which is embedded in Article III's case or controversy requirement, requires that an actual, ongoing controversy exist at all stages of federal Court proceedings." Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (2011). Because Petitioner's release date needed to be recalculated, Petitioner no longer has a redressable injury arising from the miscalculation alleged in his Petition. See Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969) (). Consequently, because events...
To continue reading
Request your trial