1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Lonnie W. Lotshaw, Case No. 2:24-cv-00828-CDS-MDC

5 Petitioner Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 6 v. and Denying Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot 7 LVCCC Halfway House and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 8 [ECF No. 9]

9 Respondents 10

11 Petitioner Lonnie Lotshaw initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas 12 corpus pursuant to

on June 4, 2024. Pet., ECF No. 1. In the petition, Lotshaw asks 13 this court to order the LVCCC Halfway House to apply all applicable First Step Act (FSA) time 14 credits to his sentence.

. On October 2, 2024, the defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 15 filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing the petition contains several fatal flaws. See generally 16 Mot. to dismiss, ECF No. 9. Lotshaw did not file an opposition or otherwise respond to the motion 17 to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, I deny the government’s motion to dismiss as moot, 18 dismiss Lotshaw’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and request that the Clerk of Court close this 19 action. 20 21 22

23 1 Habeas petitions under

“must be brought . . . in the custodial court,” i.e., the district in which the petitioner is in custody. See Hernandez v. Campbell,

(9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) 24 (citations omitted). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court takes judicial notice of the docket in District of Nevada case number 2:25-cr-00019-APG-EJY. Docket entry two is a transfer of jurisdiction from 25 the District of Kansas to the District of Nevada. 2:25-cr-00019-APG-EJY at 2. Although official transfer of Lotshaw’s supervision to this District occurred after the filing of this action, the court nonetheless 26 presumes jurisdiction is appropriate as Lotshaw was released to the Las Vegas Halfway House, which is within the jurisdiction of this court. I further note there is no challenge to jurisdiction from the government. 1 I. Discussion 2 Under Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, a federal court’s jurisdiction is limited 3 to adjudication of “live” cases and controversies. See Hollingsworth v. Perry,

(2013) 4 (“Article III demands that an actual controversy persist throughout all stages of litigation.”) 5 (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine whether a case meets the “case and controversy” 6 requirement, federal courts consider various doctrines, including “standing,” “ripeness,” and 7 “mootness.” See Poe v. Ullman,

, 502–05 (1961). Further, to maintain a claim, a litigant 8 must continue to have a personal stake in all stages of the judicial proceeding. See Lewis v. Continental 9 Bank Corp.,

, 477–78 (1990); see also Preiser v. Newkirk,

(1975). This 10 means that a plaintiff “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the 11 defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision” throughout the course of the 12 litigation. Lewis,

(emphasis added). A case must be dismissed if it becomes moot at 13 any stage. See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle,

(1982). 14 Absent collateral consequences, a “habeas petition does not continue to present a live 15 controversy once the petitioner is released from custody.” Abdala v. INS,

(9th Cir. 16 2007); Kelley v. Brewer,

, *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023) (“[T]here is nothing 17 capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial decision because the BOP has already calculated 18 his FSA credits and released [the petitioner]. In other words, petitioner’s case is moot absent 19 demonstrable collateral consequences arising from BOP’s calculation of his FSA credits.”). In 20 resolving BOP’s motion to dismiss, the court learned that Lotshaw is no longer in BOP custody as of 21 December 10, 2024.2 22 Because Lotshaw is no longer in BOP custody and there are no collateral consequences 23 raised in the petition, Lotshaw’s claim is moot so this court cannot grant the relief he seeks. Alvarez 24 v. Arviza,

, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2023) (citing Fower v. Birkholz, 2023 25 2 I take judicial notice of this information from the Bureau of Prisons website, 26 https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed March 28, 2025). See Fed. R. Evid. 201. Lotshaw’s register number is 28746-048. 1 ||] WL 3828775, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2023) (“Petition is moot because Petitioner obtained the relief 2 ||he sought in the Petition — release from BOP custody after the application of his FSA credits.”))). 3 || Consequently, Lotshaw’s petition is moot, which deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider any 4 ||claims raised in the petition, so I dismiss the petition and deny the BOP’s motion to dismiss as 5 6 Conclusion 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lotshaw’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [ECF 8 6] is dismissed. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BOP’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 9] is DENIED as 10 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to close this ) 12 Dated: March 31, 2025 LZ (

13 A. A —_— Cristina D/Silva 14 Unit ates District Judge 15 ‘

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26