IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 2, 2012
JOHN H. PIRTLE PETITIONER,
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, ET AL. RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 19, 2012, the court required respondent to show cause why this case, which challenges the petitioner's denial of parole in 2002, is not now moot in light of petitioner's grant of parole and release in 2010. See Order (Docket No. 64). The parties have filed a joint response to the show cause order, in which they agree that "this Petition is now moot and should be dismissed." Joint Response at 2 (Docket No. 65).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant petition be dismissed as moot and this case closed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.