Plummer v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DANIEL LEE PLUMMER,
Petitioner,
vs.
EARL HOUSER,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00019-JMK
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Self-represented prisoner, Daniel Lee Plummer, filed a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 At the time of filing, Mr. Plummer was
a pretrial detainee at Goose Creek Correctional Center with pending Alaska state
criminal charges.2 The Court screened Mr. Plummer’s Petition in accordance with
Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts,3 dismissed three of the claims, but granted leave to amend as to
the Speedy Trial claim.4 	Mr. Plummer submitted a First Amended Complaint on
1 Docket 1.
2 See Id.
3 Local Habeas Rule 1.1(c)(2) (providing that the same procedural rules for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and
§ 2255 govern 28 U.S.C. § 2241).
4 Docket 5.
Case 3:22-cv-00019-JMK Document 7 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 4

3:22-cv-00019-JMK, Plummer v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 4
March 30, 2022.5 Again, this Court takes judicial notice of Mr. Plummer’s criminal
case in the Alaska Superior Court at 3AN-17-04692CR.6
28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides federal courts with general habeas corpus
jurisdiction.7 	A court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition.8 	“If it plainly
appears 	from 	the 	motion, 	any 	attached 	exhibits, 	and 	the 	record 	of 	prior
proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss
the motion[.]”9
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, because Article III § 2 of the U.S.
Constitution only grants federal courts the authority to hear actual cases and
controversies. 	The 	U.S. 	Constitution’s 	case-or-controversy 	requirement
necessitates that a petitioner must have an actual injury traceable to the defendant
(or respondent) that can be remedied with a favorable judicial decision.10 A petition
5Docket 6.
6 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a
party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399
F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are
appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R.
Evid. 201.
7 See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 608 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1999).
8 Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. (The
same procedural rules for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 govern 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Local Habeas Corpus
Rule 1.1(c)(2)).
9 Id.
10 Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).
Case 3:22-cv-00019-JMK Document 7 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 4

3:22-cv-00019-JMK, Plummer v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 4
for a writ of habeas corpus is moot when it no longer presents an actual injury and
the relief requested cannot be remedied by a favorable decision from the court.11
Mootness is jurisdictional; therefore, a moot petition must be dismissed, because
nothing remains before a court to be remedied.12
The public record of the Alaska Superior Court shows that on May 4, 2022,
Charges 1–6 were dismissed by the prosecution, Mr. Plummer’s bond was
exonerated, and Case No. 3AN-17-04692CR was closed.13 	Mr. Plummer is no
longer a pre-trial detainee pursuant to Case No. 3AN-17-04692CR. Mr. Plummer
no longer faces an alleged injury to his speedy trial rights that can be remedied
with a favorable judicial decision; therefore, this petition is moot.
For the foregoing reasons, it plainly appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction
over Mr. Plummer’s Petition, because the issue is moot. Therefore, Mr. Plummer’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be dismissed.
IT IS THERFORE ORDERED:
1. 	The Petition at Docket 1 is DISMISSED.
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED.
3. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment in this case.
11 Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 479 (9th Cir. 2003); Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000–
01 (9th Cir. 2005).
12 Spencer, 523 U.S. at 18.
13 State of Alaska v. Daniel Lee Plummer, Case No. 3AN-17-04692CR (Docket Information entries
dated 05/04/2022).
Case 3:22-cv-00019-JMK Document 7 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 4

3:22-cv-00019-JMK, Plummer v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 4
The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order along with the Judgment to
Mr. Plummer at his new, unrelated custodial location of Cook Inlet 	Pretrial.14
4. 	A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.15
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 23rd day of May, 2022.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
United States District Judge
14 See generally State of Alaska v. Daniel Lee Plummer, Case No. 4FA-90-00579CR.
15 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate
of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Case 3:22-cv-00019-JMK Document 7 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 4