UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 4, 2011
SHAWN CHRISTOPHER ALLS, PETITIONER,
T. OCHOA, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Manuel L. Real United States District Judge
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION [28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)]
This habeas petition is obviously moot, as explained below. Accordingly, the Court must and does dismiss it summarily.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified."
In an earlier habeas action, this Court recently agreed that Petitioner Alls's 2009 parole denial was not supported by "some evidence." The Court thus granted Petitioner habeas relief on December 16, 2010, requiring the state parole board to issue him a new parole determination. See docket in Alls v. Salazar, No. CV 10-00718 R (RZ).
In the above-captioned new habeas action, Petitioner Alls challenges the parole board's rejection of his April 2010 request to obtain an earlier parole hearing date. Because this Court's Judgment already requires a new parole determination, however, the new petition seeks a remedy that the Court already has granted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice as moot.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.