Case ID: f-appx_571/html/0533-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles S. POPE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-36018.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 8, 2014.
    Filed April 23, 2014.
    Anthony Bornstein, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Samuel Abraham Kubernick, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Charles Pope seeks federal habeas relief based on his claims of constitutional error arising from an Oregon Board of Parole hearing conducted on August 3, 2011.

In January 2014, the Board of Parole conducted a hearing, referred to as an exit interview, in anticipation of Pope’s scheduled July 21, 2014 release date. Following that hearing, the Board of Parole deferred Pope’s release date 24 months to July 2016.

A habeas petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy because the injury alleged cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). If Pope were to prevail on the merits of his constitutional claims, the only relief this court could order would be that the Board of Parole conduct an exit interview hearing. That, Pope has already obtained. We therefore conclude that Pope’s claim is moot. Because the court does not have jurisdiction to hear Pope’s claim, the appeal is dismissed.

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