Case ID: f-appx_451/html/0703-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kailash Chandra CHAUDHARY, Ph.D., Petitioner—Appellant, v. BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 10-17236.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2011.
    Kailash Chandra Chaudhary, Ph. D., San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Amber N. Wipfler, Esquire, AGCA-Of-fice of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Ap-pellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Kai-lash Chandra Chaudhary appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Chaudhary contends that his federal due process rights were violated by the state’s failure to give him credit, against the five-year service requirement under California Penal Code § 3000.1(b), for the time served between the date that the Board granted him parole and the date that the state court reversed the Governor’s decision denying the grant of parole. Chaudhary has now been discharged from parole. Thus, his appeal is moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam) (“[A]n appeal should ... be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant[.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We construe Chaudhary’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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