Ryan Bonneau v. United States , 503 F. App'x 544 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 04 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RYAN BONNEAU,                                       No. 11-35807
    Petitioner - Appellant,              D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00653-PK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 19, 2012 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Federal prisoner Ryan Bonneau appeals pro se from the district court’s
    judgment on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     habeas petition. We vacate and remand with
    instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Bonneau’s petition challenges the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) calculation of
    good time credits for sentences he has already served. In particular, he argues the
    BOP should have aggregated two of his earlier sentences and awarded him an
    additional 52 days of good time credit. Bonneau also argues that he is entitled to
    53 days of good time credit because, while he was serving an earlier sentence, the
    BOP transferred him out of a Residential Drug Treatment Program in violation of
    his due process rights.
    The record reflects that Bonneau had fully served the custodial portion of the
    sentences he is attacking at the time he filed his habeas petition, and that his
    current incarceration arises from a new conviction and violations of supervised
    release. Therefore, the district court could not grant him any effective relief and it
    should have dismissed his petition for lack of a case or controversy. See Burnett v.
    Lampert, 
    432 F.3d 996
    , 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2005); Nonnette v. Small, 
    316 F.3d 872
    , 875-76 (9th Cir. 2002). We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand
    with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                       11-35807
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-35807

Citation Numbers: 503 F. App'x 544

Judges: Fisher, Goodwin, Wallace

Filed Date: 1/4/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023