Case ID: f-appx_459/html/0668-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur MARCELO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 08-56609.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 28, 2011.
    Arthur Marcelo, Avenal, CA, pro se.
    Jennifer L. Heinisch, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Arthur Marcelo appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the Board of Prison Terms’s 2004 and 2005 decisions denying parole. We dismiss.

The record reflects that Marcelo received a new parole hearing in 2010 and has been released on parole. Thus, there is no injury that can be redressed by a favorable decision, and the case is moot. See Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999-1001 (9th Cir.2005); see also Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir.1997) (“Because Munoz has been released ..., we can no longer provide him the primary relief sought in his habeas corpus petition”).

The state’s motion for judicial notice is granted.

William Charles Melcher’s motion to withdraw as Marcelo’s counsel is also granted.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.