United States District Court, Northern District of California
April 11, 2003
WILLIAM MANSERGH, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION AND SHERIFF CHARLES T. PLUMMER, RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Vaughn R. Walker, United States District Judge
PARTIES' STIPULATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
The parties in this case hereby stipulate that the petition should be dismissed because it is now moot.
On February 19, 2003, Mr. Mansergh filed in this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus or, alternatively, a petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition, Mr. Mansergh claimed that the Parole Commission violated his rights by (1) not terminating his parole after five years on supervision or providing him with a termination hearing, as required by law, and (2) delaying execution of the warrant charging him with violations of his special parole term for more than three years. On March 7, 2003, the Court found Mr. Mansergh's claims cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It ordered respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue.
One week later, the Commission ordered Mr. Mansergh released from custody. The Commission also ordered Mr. Mansergh's case closed. Because Mr. Mansergh's ten-year term of special parole would have terminated on November 8, 2000, had the special parole revocation charges not been pending, the closing of the Commission's case also terminated Mr. Mansergh's term of special parole.
Mr. Mansergh is no longer in physical custody. Because his term of special parole is over, he is no longer in custody for purposes of this habeas petition. The petition is moot, and the parties agree that it should be dismissed.
Because petitioner has been released from physical custody and his term of special parole has terminated, his petition for writ of habeas corpus is now moot. The petition is dismissed, and the case should be closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.