Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Parker v. Ayers

    Uploaded by

    Northern District of California Blog
    The document summarizes a court order granting a motion to dismiss a habeas corpus petition as moot. Specifically: 1) The petitioner challenged his 2007 denial of parole but has since been released on parole. 2) As the petitioner no longer seeks release and does not challenge his conviction, he lacks a legal interest in the case's outcome and it is therefore moot. 3) The possibility of future parole revocation does not prevent the case from being moot, so the motion to dismiss is granted and the case is closed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Parker v. Ayers

    Uploaded by

    Northern District of California Blog
    56 views3 pages
    The document summarizes a court order granting a motion to dismiss a habeas corpus petition as moot. Specifically: 1) The petitioner challenged his 2007 denial of parole but has since been released on parole. 2) As the petitioner no longer seeks release and does not challenge his conviction, he lacks a legal interest in the case's outcome and it is therefore moot. 3) The possibility of future parole revocation does not prevent the case from being moot, so the motion to dismiss is granted and the case is closed.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court order granting a motion to dismiss a habeas corpus petition as moot. Specifically: 1) The petitioner challenged his 2007 denial of parole but has since been released on parole. 2) As the petitioner no longer seeks release and does not challenge his conviction, he lacks a legal interest in the case's outcome and it is therefore moot. 3) The possibility of future parole revocation does not prevent the case from being moot, so the motion to dismiss is granted and the case is closed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    56 views3 pages

    Parker v. Ayers

    Uploaded by

    Northern District of California Blog
    The document summarizes a court order granting a motion to dismiss a habeas corpus petition as moot. Specifically: 1) The petitioner challenged his 2007 denial of parole but has since been released on parole. 2) As the petitioner no longer seeks release and does not challenge his conviction, he lacks a legal interest in the case's outcome and it is therefore moot. 3) The possibility of future parole revocation does not prevent the case from being moot, so the motion to dismiss is granted and the case is closed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Case4:09-cv-00063-SBA Document6 Filed09/09/10 Page1 of 3

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    9
    10
    CLIFFORD L. PARKER, No. C 09-00063 SBA (PR)
    For the Northern District of California

    11
    Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S
    United States District Court

    12 MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AS


    v. MOOT
    13
    ROBERT AYERS, JR., Warden,
    14
    Respondent.
    /
    15
    16 Petitioner filed the present pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
    17 challenging the 2007 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) finding him
    18 unsuitable for parole.
    19 Before the Court is Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as moot. Respondent alleges
    20 that Petitioner was subsequently found suitable for parole and was released on parole on or about
    21 September 1, 2010. (Notice of Parole Release in Case No. C 03-4924 SBA (pr) at 2.) Petitioner did
    22 not file an opposition to the motion.
    23 Where a prisoner seeks release on parole and does not challenge the validity of his
    24 conviction, his habeas petition becomes moot once he is released on parole. See Fendler v. United
    25 States Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d
    26 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988) (a moot action is one in which the parties lack a legally cognizable interest
    27 in the outcome). The possibility of parole revocation does not present a situation which is "'capable
    28
    Case4:09-cv-00063-SBA Document6 Filed09/09/10 Page2 of 3

    1 of repetition, yet evading review'" to which the doctrine of mootness may not apply. Id. (citation
    2 omitted).
    3 Here, Petitioner claims that the Board's 2007 denial of parole was unlawful. Because
    4 Petitioner has now been released on parole and does not challenge his conviction, he lacks a
    5 cognizable interest in the outcome of this action. See Reimers, 863 F.2d at 632; Fendler, 846 F.2d at
    6 555. That the relief he seeks may result in the possible earlier termination of parole supervision
    7 does not circumvent mootness. See id. (rejecting claim of exception to mootness by federal prisoner
    8 who could seek review of his eligibility for early termination of parole by applying to the parole
    9 commission).
    10 For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the petition is
    For the Northern District of California

    11 dismissed as moot.
    United States District Court

    12 The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent, terminate all pending
    13 motions as moot, and close the file.
    14 This Order terminates Docket no. 5.
    15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
    16 DATED: 9/7/10
    SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
    17 United States District Judge
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    2
    Case4:09-cv-00063-SBA Document6 Filed09/09/10 Page3 of 3

    1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE
    2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    3
    CLIFFORD L PARKER,
    4 Case Number: CV09-00063 SBA
    Plaintiff,
    5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    v.
    6
    ROBERT AYERS JR et al,
    7
    Defendant.
    8 /

    9
    I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
    10 Court, Northern District of California.
    For the Northern District of California

    11 That on September 9, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
    copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
    United States District Court

    12 envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
    located in the Clerk's office.
    13
    14
    15
    Clifford Lelikona Parker J-43369
    16 California State Prison - San Quentin
    San Quentin, CA 94974
    17
    Dated: September 9, 2010
    18 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
    By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.09\Parker0063.dismiss.wpd 3

    You might also like