The opinion of the court was delivered by: Theresa A. Goldner United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT (Doc. 17)
ORDER TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner filed his petition on June 6, 2006, claiming that his constitutional rights were violated by the imposition of an unlawful condition of parole, i.e., warrantless searches, and also seeking relief from the results of a disciplinary hearing about which Petitioner provided no information. (Doc. 1). On May 2, 2008, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss, contending that because Petitioner had discharged the underlying sentence for which he was on parole, the issues raised in the petition were moot. (Doc. 17). Petitioner did not file a response to the motion.
The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70, 104 S.Ct. 373 (1983); N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the "the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S.Ct. 1181 (1984). The Court has no power to decide cases that do not affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. Defunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1704 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-528 (9th Cir. 1996). "To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant must have suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1917 (1976); N.A.A.C.P., Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.
Along with the motion to dismiss, Respondent submitted documentation establishing that, as of November 3, 2006, Petitioner had discharged the underlying sentence upon which the parole and parole conditions about which the instant petition complains. (Doc. 17, Exhs. 12, 13). Although Petitioner was to be convicted of yet another offense and re-incarcerated and then re-paroled, those events are not the subject of the instant petition or motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the Court will address them to provide a background for its analysis.
1. Petitioner's Underlying Conviction and Sentence
The documents submitted by Respondent establish that on October 10, 2001 , Petitioner was convicted of second degree burglary*fn1 with four prior prison term enhancements*fn2 in People v. David William Jacobsen, Kern County Superior Court case number BF095875. (Doc. 17, Exhs. 12, 13). Petitioner was sentenced to serve an aggregate term of seven years. (Doc. 17, Exh. 13). On September 20, 2005, Petitioner was released on parole from that sentence. (Doc. 17, Exhs. 1-3). Petitioner's claims in the instant petition arise out of his parole from the burglary sentence and the conditions of that parole.
2. Petitioner's Parole Revocations and Eventual Discharge from Parole
The documents submitted by Respondent also establish that (a) on September 29, 2005, Petitioner was arrested for use of cocaine, terrorist threats, resisting arrest, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of cocaine, and placed on a parole hold, (b) on October 31, 2005, Petitioner's parole was revoked and he was sentenced to serve a ten-month revocation term, (c) after being re-released on parole on May 1, 2006, one week later Petitioner was arrested for receiving stolen property and placed on a parole hold, and (d) on June 1, 2006, Petitioner's parole was revoked and he was sentenced to serve a nine-month revocation term. (Doc. 17, Exhs. 1, 6, 7, 10, 11). The documents also establish that on November 3, 2006, Petitioner was discharged from parole in case number BF095875. (Doc. 17, Exhs. 12, 13).
3. Petitioner's New Conviction
The documents submitted by Respondent also establish that on March 22, 2006, Petitioner was convicted of possession of a controlled substance*fn3 and a prior prison term enhancement*fn4 in a new case entitled People v. David Williams Jacobsen, Kern County Superior Court case number BF111940A, and was sentenced in that case on January 4, 2007 to serve a term of three years. (Doc. 17, Exhs. 2, 8, 9). The conviction in case number BF111940A was related to one of the probation violations found to be true on October 31, 2005, ...