Rivera v. Winn, 4:14-cv-02302

Petitioner Reynaldo Vazquez-Rivera, a federal inmate at USP–Tucson, was cited on March 19, 2014 for possession of a hazardous tool (an Alcatel cell phone and charger) after a pat search and cell search.
Petitioner admitted ownership of the phone/charger during the investigation, UDC hearing, and before the DHO; he declined a staff representative.
On July 22, 2014, the DHO found Petitioner guilty of Code 108 and imposed sanctions including 30 days disciplinary segregation and 41 days disallowance of good conduct time, plus loss of certain privileges for one year.
Petitioner pursued a regional administrative appeal, which was denied; he did not file a national appeal to the Office of General Counsel.
Petitioner filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking reversal of the disciplinary conviction, return of 41 days good time, and release from Special Housing Unit.
The Court noted the warden named in the petition had changed and substituted the current warden. The BOP inmate locator showed Petitioner was released from federal custody on September 6, 2016.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper vehicle/jurisdiction: whether relief for prison disciplinary action is brought under § 2241 or § 2255	Vazquez-Rivera invoked § 2241 to challenge the disciplinary proceedings affecting his confinement credits and conditions	Respondent argued the custodial court has jurisdiction over challenges to execution/conditions via § 2241	Court held § 2241 is the proper vehicle because petitioner challenges the execution/conditions of his sentence, not the legality of the underlying sentence
Mootness: whether Petitioner’s § 2241 petition remains live after his release from custody	Petitioner sought restoration of good time and reversal of conviction; argued procedural defects in incident report and notice	Respondent relied on the fact Petitioner was released and thus the Court cannot grant the requested relief; no record of continuing collateral consequences shown	Court held the petition is moot because Petitioner was released and there is no ongoing collateral consequence that would permit relief; dismissal ordered

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (district courts must determine proper habeas vehicle and jurisdiction)
Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (challenges to confinement and its duration are within habeas corpus jurisdiction)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (petition becomes moot upon release unless there are collateral consequences)
Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1997) (§ 2241 petitions challenging conditions of confinement are moot after release)
Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas writ seeks discharge from unlawful physical custody; release moots claims challenging location/conditions)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)