The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patrick J. Walsh United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
On October 24, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"), seeking to challenge the lawfulness of a parole revocation proceeding. According to the Petition, he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a loaded firearm in January 2006 and sentenced to four years in custody.*fn1 (Petition at 2.) Thereafter, he was released on parole and, in September 2008, his parole was revoked, resulting in a five-month sentence. (Petition at 3-4.) Petitioner claims that the September 2008 revocation proceedings violated his constitutional rights. (Petition at 3-6.) Beginning in April 2009, however, Petitioner notified the Court of several changes of address, all of which listed street addresses indicating Petitioner had served the entirety of the sentence and been released from prison.
The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983). A case becomes moot if the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties have no legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). "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.
A habeas petition that challenges an underlying conviction is not rendered moot by the expiration of the sentence that was imposed as a result of the conviction. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). In such a case, courts presume that a criminal conviction has some continuing, collateral consequences that will preclude mootness. Id. at 7-8. This presumption of continuing collateral consequences does not extend to parole revocations. Id. at 12, 14. Therefore, a petitioner who seeks to challenge the validity of a parole revocation term that has already been served must demonstrate that continuing collateral consequences exist, or the petition will be dismissed as moot. Id. at 14; see also Cox v. McCarthy, 829 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding claim moot because "[i]t is clear that the direct consequences of the state action challenged here can no longer be remedied in habeas").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, no later than March 17, 2010, Petitioner shall inform the Court in writing why this case should not be dismissed as moot. Failure to timely file a response will ...