Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8625550
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Johnson v. Daniels
No. 8625550 · Decided October 23, 2006
No. 8625550·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 23, 2006
Citation
No. 8625550
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** In consolidated cases, Larry Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing five 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions for failure to comply with a court order, failure to prosecute, and mootness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm the district court. We conclude that Johnson’s petitions are not moot because, at the time of the district court’s order, he was on home confinement and, in any event, he is now on supervised release. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petitions. It is uncontested that, in its November order, the district court instructed Johnson to file a consolidated habeas petition by March 1, 2005. The record shows that Johnson did not comply with the district court’s order. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his petitions. See James v. Madison St. Jail, 122 F.3d 27 , 27 n. 1 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** In consolidated cases, Larry Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing five 28 U.S.C.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** In consolidated cases, Larry Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing five 28 U.S.C.
02§ 2241 habeas petitions for failure to comply with a court order, failure to prosecute, and mootness.
03We conclude that Johnson’s petitions are not moot because, at the time of the district court’s order, he was on home confinement and, in any event, he is now on supervised release.
04However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petitions.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** In consolidated cases, Larry Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing five 28 U.S.C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Johnson v. Daniels in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 23, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8625550 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.