REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

D. THOMAS FERRARO, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Petitioner Cesar Trevizo Acevedo's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Petition"). (Doc. 1.) Respondent has filed its Return and Answer to Petitioner Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 14.) No reply has been filed. (Dkt.)

As more fully set forth below, the Court recommends that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, dismiss the case as moot.

Background

Petitioner was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment for burglary of a habitation. (Doc. 14-2 at Ex. A, ¶ 5.) On December 8, 2015, Petitioner was paroled from the state burglary charge and released into the custody of the United States Marshals Service pursuant to a federal detainer related to a supervised release violation. (Id. at ¶ 6.) On March 31, 2016, Petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to 24-months of imprisonment and for violating his supervised release. (Doc. 14-2 at Ex. A, ¶ 7.)

On December 27, 2016, while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Complex in Tucson, Arizona, Petitioner filed the instant Petition seeking "[i]mmediate release from imprisonment and credit for wrongful imprisonment to be applied to [P]etitioner's supervised release." (Doc. 1 at p. 12.) Petitioner alleges that the Bureau of Prisons miscalculated his sentence arguing that the sentencing court intended for him to only serve three (3) months in federal custody. (Id. at p. 4.) On April 4, 2017, Respondent requested additional time to respond to the Petition on the grounds that it wished to seek clarification of the sentencing court's order. (Doc. 11.) On April 12, 2017, this Court granted Respondent's request. (Doc. 12.)

On May 12, 2017, the sentencing court issued an amended order sentencing Petitioner, in relevant part, as follows,

(Doc. 14-2 at Ex. A, ¶ 9; Id. at p. 24.) (Emphasis in original.) Petitioner was released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons on the day the amended order issued. (Id. at Ex. A, ¶ 10.)

Analysis

Article III, Section 2 of the Unites States Constitution requires a live case or controversy to satisfy jurisdiction, which means the parties "must continue to have a `personal stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit." Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 1998). For this Court to retain jurisdiction over the Petition, Petitioner "must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Lewis v. Cont'l Bank, 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). (Citations omitted.) This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition that is moot. McCollough v. Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013).

As mentioned above, Petitioner seeks release from imprisonment. Petitioner was released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons on the day that the amended order issued (May 12, 2017). Since Petitioner has already been released from custody there is no "case or controversy" remaining. The case is moot. See Degrammont v. Gonzalez, 2006 WL 2460929, at * 1 (D. Ariz. 2006) (petition was moot when petitioner, challenging detention pending removal, was released from custody because no case or controversy remained), Report and Recommendation adopted August 24, 2006, (citing Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991) (where petitioner had only requested release from custody and petitioner had already been released the court could provide no further relief)). See also, Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases in which a prisoner's release from detention, parole, or removal rendered a habeas petition moot).

Petitioner's request that he be given "credit for wrongful imprisonment . . . to [his] supervised release [term][]" does not save his Petition from dismissal on mootness grounds. Since Petitioner was released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons on the day the amended order issued he served no time in excess of his sentence that could be credited against his term of supervised release.

The Court cannot provide any relief to Petitioner. As such, the Petition is moot and should be dismissed.

Recommendation

The Petition is moot and should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court DISMISS the case as moot.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to the other party's objections within fourteen days. No reply brief shall be filed on objections unless leave is granted by the district court. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: 16-CV-00790-JGZ.