The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Margaret A. Nagle , United States Magistrate Judge
ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR MOOTNESS
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Tape No.
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR RESPONDENTS:
PROCEEDINGS (In Chambers):
26, 2010, Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of California, which alleges a single claim ("Petition"). In brief, Petitioner asserts that the Board of Parole Hearings erred in finding Petitioner to be unsuitable for parole on June 3, 2008. contends that, because he allegedly is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted and his confession illegally coerced, the California Board of Parole Hearings should not have found that he poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
26, 2010, the Petition was ordered transferred to this district. The parties thereafter filed their briefs, and the case is under submission to the Court.
21, 2011, Petitioner filed a notice of change of address, which indicated that he "currently reside[s] in Angeles" and is utilizing a Los Angeles post office box for his address of record. On October 28, 2011, filed various notices and lodged documents. An Offender Based Information System printout generated 26, 2011 (see Docket Entry 16 and related lodged document) establishes that, on October 17, 2011, Petitioner was paroled.
becomes moot when it no longer satisfies the case or controversy requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S. Ct. 978, 983 (1998). The case or controversy requirement that the parties continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of a federal lawsuit through all stages of the judicial proceedings. Id. "This means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff 'must have suffered, or be with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial Id. (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 1253 (1990)).
petition is moot when petitioner's claim for relief cannot be redressed by a favorable decision of the court issuing a writ of habeas corpus. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7, 118 S. Ct. at 983; Burnett v. Lampert, 432 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005). "The question is whether there can be any effective relief." Cantrell v. City of Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2001); see also NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of State 488 F.3d 1065. 1067 (9th Cir. 2007) (whether a case or controversy remains depends on whether the court the litigant "'any effective relief in the event that it decides the matter on its merits in his favor'")(citation
arguendo, Petitioner could prevail on the habeas claim alleged in the Petition, the only relief he could *fn1 is "a redetermination by the Board consistent with the state's 'some evidence' requirement, not the right to on parole." Haggard v. Curry, 631 F.3d 931, 937 (9th Cir. 2010). As Petitioner has been released on parole, no such redetermination by the Board of Parole Hearings is needed or even feasible.
Petitioner is subject to the lifetime parole supervision requirements of California Penal Code § 3000.1, the second degree murder of which he was convicted was committed after January 1, 1983. See In re 172 Cal. App. 4th 32, 34, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678, 679 (2009). Under California law, the time Petitioner imprisoned after the allegedly wrongful denial of parole in 2008 cannot be credited toward the five-year ...