Opinion

Joseph Brown v. Paul Copenhaver

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Mar 19, 2018
Status
Unpublished
Nature of suit
Habeas
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 4.3%

dismissing appeal because challenge to placement in administrative segregation became moot upon appellant’s release on parole

How later courts described this case

  • dismissing appeal because challenge to placement in administrative segregation became moot upon appellant’s release on parole

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH BROWN, No. 14-16153

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00481-LJO

v.

MEMORANDUM*

PAUL COPENHAVER,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Joseph Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We dismiss.

Brown’s section 2241 petition alleged that prison staff at USP Atwater

improperly designated him to a “Control Unit Facility” within the prison. The

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

district court dismissed Brown’s petition on the basis that his claim was not

cognizable in habeas. On appeal, Brown asks this court to remand the petition to

the district court so he can develop a claim that, he contends, meets the

jurisdictional requirements to seek habeas relief.

We need not determine whether the district court properly concluded that it

lacked jurisdiction over Brown’s habeas petition because the Bureau of Prisons’

inmate locator service shows that Brown is currently being housed at USP Canaan,

in Waymart, Pennsylvania. Brown’s claim, which arose from his custody

designation at USP Atwater, is therefore moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,

7 (1998) (a habeas petition becomes moot when the injury alleged cannot be

redressed by a favorable judicial decision); Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096,

1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissing appeal because challenge to placement in

administrative segregation became moot upon appellant’s release on parole). We,

accordingly, deny Brown’s request to remand to add a new claim and dismiss this

appeal. See Munoz, 104 F.3d at 1098.

All other pending motions are denied.

DISMISSED.

2 14-16153

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.