Hidde v. Wrigley

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jordan Lane Hidde, No. CV-20-02099-PHX-JAT

Petitioner, ORDER v.

Unknown Wrigley, et al.,

Respondents.

The Court notes that Petitioner has been released from custody. (Doc. 25). Federal courts have jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition only if the petitioner is “‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Fowler v. Sacramento Cnty. Sheriff's Dep’t., 421 F.3d 1027, 1033 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989)). Here, Petitioner was in custody at the time he filed his Petition; thus, this Court continues to have jurisdiction over this case. The next issue then is whether Petitioner’s Petition is rendered moot by his release from custody. The Court’s record does not include Petitioner’s sentencing, and the Court cannot determine whether Petitioner is on post-release supervision, parole or probation. (Doc. 9). Thus, the Court does not know if Petitioner continues to have a direct consequence of his conviction.

Regardless of Petitioner’s current release status, the Court notes that typically habeas petitions do not become moot. In other words, if “the adverse consequences of a criminal conviction remain, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not moot, even though the petitioner’s custody has expired since filing.” Fowler, 421 F.3d at 1033 n.5 (quoting Spawr Optical Research, Inc., 864 F.2d at 1470); Wood v. Hall, 130 F.3d 373, 376 (9th || Cir. 1997) (holding there is an irrefutable presumption that collateral consequences flow from any criminal conviction); see also Pryor v. Spearman, 2020 WL 4793998 (E.D. Cal. August 18, 2020).

Nonetheless, “[o]nce a petitioner’s sentence has expired, some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction must exist in order for the suit to be maintained and not considered moot.” Pryor, 2020 WL 4793998 at *10. However, those collateral consequences may be no more than, “...an irrefutable presumption of ‘collateral || consequences’ flowing from the challenged conviction that will continue to affect } petitioner....” Zd. at 11.

Based on the foregoing, the parties shall each be required to file a supplemental brief to ensure that there remains an on-going case or controversy in this matter. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a supplemental brief on mootness by November 15, 2021. Respondents shall file a supplemental brief on mootness by November 22, 2021.

Dated this 29th day of October, 2021. i C

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

_2-