Daniel Cobb v. CATRICIA HOWARD, Complex Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL COBB,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CATRICIA HOWARD, Complex Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-15073
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00515-LCK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Lynnette C. Kimmins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 15, 2022***
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Daniel Cobb appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which
challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of good
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-15073
conduct time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the dismissal of a § 2241 petition, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d
1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court dismissed Cobb’s § 2241 petition as moot because the
record showed that, after Cobb filed his petition, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
restored the good conduct time that had been forfeited in his disciplinary
proceedings. Cobb concedes that the good conduct time has been restored, but
contends that the district court erred by ruling on his petition before the
government could correct alleged errors in its response and before all processes
were completed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
The district court properly dismissed Cobb’s § 2241 petition as moot, see
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998), and correctly concluded that none of the
statements in the government’s response to which Cobb objected were material to
that jurisdictional issue. Moreover, we find no error in the timing of the district
court’s order denying his petition because there is no indication in the record that
Cobb had taken any of the steps required by Rule 11. Finally, the record does not
support Cobb’s assertion that the magistrate judge was biased.
We do not consider Cobb’s allegations that BOP staff are retaliating against
him because they are beyond the scope of this appeal.
Cobb’s request to strike portions of the supplemental excerpts of record is

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-15073
denied.
The opening brief was provisionally sealed because it contains confidential
information that should have been redacted prior to filing. The Clerk will maintain
the opening brief at Docket Entry No. 3 under seal in accordance with Ninth
Circuit Rule 27-13.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --