ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE FILE

NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS REQUIRED

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On July 3, 2014, Petitioner filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 5). On September 2, 2014, Respondent filed a similar written consent. (Doc. 7).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on June 25, 2014, challenging the validity of a prison disciplinary hearing on the grounds that the hearing was conducted by and a decision rendered by an employee of the privately-run prison rather than by an employee of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") . (Doc. 1). On July 2, 2014, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition. (Doc. 4). On September 2, 2014, Respondent filed the instant motion for motion to dismiss the petition as moot, contending that Petitioner has been released from prison and is no longer in the custody of the BOP. (Doc. 5). Petitioner has filed no opposition to the motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104 S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the "the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). The Federal Court is "without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them." North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937).

Here, the instant petition requests that the custody credits forfeited as a result of the disciplinary hearing be restored because the hearing was unauthorized. (Doc. 1, p. 9). In the Declaration of Nellie T. Klein, attached to Respondent's motion to dismiss, uncontroverted evidence is presented that, on August 21, 2014, Petitioner was released from the custody of the BOP and is no longer confined at Taft Correctional Institution. (Doc.9, Ex. 1, Decl. of Nellie T. Klein, p. 2). Because the only relief sought by Petitioner was restoration of forfeited custody credits that would expedite his release from custody, and because Petitioner has now been released from Respondent's custody, there is no further relief this Court can provide to Petitioner. Hence, no case or controversy exists and the claim raised in the instant petition is now moot. Accordingly, Respondent's motion to dismiss will be granted and the petition will be dismissed as moot.

Moreover, the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253( c)(1) does not require a certificate of appealability because this is an appeal from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.