Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

George R. Peterson v. Jeanne Woodford

April 13, 2011

GEORGE R. PETERSON,
PETITIONER,
v.
JEANNE WOODFORD, ET AL., RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephen V. Wilson United States District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT

For reasons stated below the petition is dismissed as moot.

BACKGROUND

The pro se petitioner filed the present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2254)("Pet.") on January 21, 2005. [Docket no. 1.] Respondents filed an answer, a memorandum, and exhibits ("R. Ex.") on April 4, 2005. [Docket nos. 9, 10 and 11.] Petitioner filed a traverse on April 28, 2005. [Docket no. 13.] On July 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Petition ("Sup. Pet."). [Docket no. 30.] Respondents filed a supplemental answer on August 28, 2009. [Docket no. 35.] Petitioner filed a supplemental reply on September 30, 2009. [Docket no. 38.]

In 1988, in California Superior Court, Orange County, Case No. C63018, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder with use of a firearm and sentenced to twenty-seven years to life in state prison.

[R. Ex. A.] At the time of filing Petitioner was incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, California. [Pet.]

The petition does not challenge Petitioner's underlying conviction or sentence, but rather a 2003 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings ("the Board") finding Petitioner not suitable for parole. [Pet.] Petitioner asserts six grounds for federal habeas relief in his petition and supplemental petition:

1. The Board failed to hold an initial parole suitability hearing one year before Petitioner's minimum eligible parole release date as required by Cal. Penal Code § 3041(a).

2. The parole unsuitability criteria is unconstitutionally vague. 3. The Board improperly relied on an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") disability in denying Petitioner parole.

4. The Board's decision to deny parole was not supported by "some evidence."

5. The Board breached its contract with Petitioner by finding him unsuitable for parole.

6. The Board improperly relied on the District Attorney's statements to deny Petitioner parole.

[Pet. at 5, Sup. Pet. at 5-6.]

Petitioner raised and exhausted these claims in petitions for collateral review at the each ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.