October 21, 2013
JOSEPH SALVATORE TRAMAGLINO, Petitioner,
RON BARNS, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a former California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the result of 2010 prisoner disciplinary proceedings. Respondent has filed with the court a document which reveals petitioner's sentence of imprisonment was recently reduced from 28-years-to-life imprisonment, to time already served in prison which appears to be approximately 10 years. Since petitioner has been released from prison, his challenge to 2010 prisoner disciplinary proceedings appears to be moot. On September 30, 2013, the court instructed petitioner to inform the court within 14 days if he has any objection to dismissal of this action (See ECF No. 29). Petitioner has not responded to the court's order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot.
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)(1). Within fourteen 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 response 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).