Case ID: f-appx_399/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Daniel CARL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert HOREL; Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-17183.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2010.
    Charles Daniel Carl, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Robert C. Cross, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Charles Daniel Carl appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary decision for possession of a controlled substance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Carl’s petition as moot because the possibility that the disciplinary violation may impair his future parole eligibility is too speculative to constitute a collateral consequence sufficient to meet Article Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement. See Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 481-82 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district court properly dismissed Carl’s habeas petition as moot. The state has fully briefed the issue that we certify for appeal.