Brandon Leon Bibbs v. C.D.C.R.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas corpus petition seeking immediate release from state custody due to an alleged procedural defect in the commitment process. The court dismissed the case as moot because the petitioner had been released from custody, thereby receiving the primary relief sought, and did not challenge the underlying conviction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Case reopened“Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and as such the Court ORDERS the case REOPENED.” | agree with court The court correctly reopened the case after the petitioner satisfied the filing fee requirement previously set as a condition for reopening. |
Case dismissed as moot“Therefore, the case is DISMISSED as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the mootness doctrine. The petitioner's sole claim was for 'immediate release' from custody. Since the petitioner filed a notice of release from state custody, the primary relief sought has been granted. The court correctly noted that the petitioner did not challenge the underlying conviction, which would have been necessary to establish a non-moot collateral consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the relief sought (immediate release), notes the change in status (release from custody), and applies the correct legal standard from Ninth Circuit precedent (Munoz v. Rowland) to determine that the case is moot because the petitioner did not challenge the underlying conviction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON LEON BIBBS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1158-CAB-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS 13 v. MOOT 14 C.D.C.R., 15 Respondent. 16 17 On February 13, 2026, Petitioner Brandon Lee Bibbs, an inmate proceeding pro se, 18 filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] The 19 Court dismissed the action without prejudice because Petitioner failed to satisfy the filing 20 fee requirement. [Doc. No. 2]. The Court gave Petitioner until April 10, 2026 to have his 21 case reopened by either paying the filing fee or submitting a motion to proceed in forma 22 pauperis. [Id]. On April 7, 2026, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and as such the Court 23 ORDERS the case REOPENED. Upon review of the Petition, however, the Court finds 24 the action must be dismissed as moot. 25 On June 3, 2026, Petitioner filed a notice of change of address indicating that he has 26 been released from state custody. [Doc. No. 4.] A habeas petition may become moot when 27 a petitioner who sought release from custody as the primary relief for his habeas petition 28 is released from custody. See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097–98 (9th Cir. 1997) 1 || (“Because [the petitioner] has been released . .., we can no longer provide him the primary 2 ||relief sought in his habeas corpus petition.”). However, “if a petitioner challenges the 3 || validity of his underlying conviction, the collateral consequences of that conviction may 4 ||be sufficient to overcome mootness despite his subsequent release from prison.” /d. at 5 |} 1098. 6 Here, in his only ground for relief, Petitioner seeks “immediate release” from 7 || custody because, he alleges, he was committed to the custody of the California Department 8 Corrections and Rehabilitation “without a certified cop[y] [of his] judgment of 9 || conviction record (abstract or minute order), which results in an illegal custody.” [Doc. 10 1 at 5.] Petitioner does not challenge, or even reference, his underlying criminal 11 |/conviction. Because Petitioner indicates he has been released from custody, [see Doc. No. 12 he has received the primary relief sought in his petition. Therefore, the case is 13 || DISMISSED as moot. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: June 15, 2026 Ky 16 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28