United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are Petitioner Matthew Houston's
(“Petitioner”) Motion for Submission of
Declaratory Statements, Motion for Production of Complete
Files, Motion for Recognition of Cognizability, Motion to
Reopen Case, Motion for Reconsideration, and Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 17 - 22. For the following
reasons, the Court denies all motions.
filed a petition for habeas corpus on August 6, 2019. He
subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and
a temporary restraining order on August 22, 2019. ECF Nos. 3,
4. On October 8, 2019, this Court dismissed the action as
moot in light of information from the Nevada Department of
Corrections indicating that Petitioner had been paroled and
that Petitioner's current address is in Iowa. Petitioner
has now filed the instant motions seeking, inter
alia, for the Court to reopen and reconsider the case
and for monetary damages stemming from what Petitioner
alleges was unlawful confinement.
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the Petitioner
is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To obtain a
preliminary injunction, a Petitioner must establish four
elements: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits,
(2) that the Petitioner will likely suffer irreparable harm
in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of
equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the public interest
favors an injunction.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD
Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th
Cir. 2014) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). A
preliminary injunction may also issue under the
“serious questions” test. Alliance for the
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir.
2011) (affirming the continued viability of this doctrine
post-Winter). According to this test, a Petitioner
can obtain a preliminary injunction by demonstrating
“that serious questions going to the merits were raised
and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the
Petitioner's favor, ” in addition to the other
Winter elements. Id. at 1134-35 (citation
Standard for Release Pending Resolution of a Habeas Corpus
corpus is the proper proceeding in which to challenge the
legality or duration of confinement. 28 U.S.C. §§
2241 - 2255; Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th
Cir.1991). The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly ruled on the
question of whether a district court has inherent power,
derived from the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus
itself and the habeas corpus statutes, to direct the release
of a state prisoner on his or her own recognizance or on a
surety pending resolution of the federal habeas petition.
In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2001).
However the Ninth Circuit has found that if a district court
did have such power, the court could only grant release if
the petitioner has shown that he has an extraordinary case
involving special circumstances or a high probability of
success. Id. at 1080, quoting Land v.
Deeds, 878 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1989).
Motion for Reconsideration
Court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for
reconsideration. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d
1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). However, “[a] motion for
reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with
newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there
is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH &
Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
Court denies all of Petitioner's motions. Nevada
Department of Corrections records continue to indicate that
Petitioner has been paroled. Nowhere in any of the subsequent
motions that Petitioner has filed does he indicate that he is
currently incarcerated. While a petition for habeas corpus is
not necessarily moot so long as the petitioner was
incarcerated or in custody at the time the petition was
filed, for the habeas petition to continue to present a live
controversy, there must be remaining collateral consequences
that may be redressed by success on ...