Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02037/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02037-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT MOUSA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2037 MCE JFM P

vs.

TOM CAREY (Warden), et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims that his constitutional rights have

been violated by repeated denials of parole. By order filed November 3, 2005, respondents were

directed to file an answer to the petition within forty-five days. On December 19, 2005,

respondents filed a motion to dismiss in which, relying on a decision of the district court in Sass

v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376 F.Supp.2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005), they contended that

petitioner had no cognizable liberty interest in parole. By order filed February 15, 2006,

respondents’ motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate,

within thirty days from the disposition of the Sass case by the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02037-MCE -JFM Document 12 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On August 31, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

issued its opinion in Sass, holding in relevant part that California inmates do have a cognizable

liberty interest in parole. Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (2006). 

Accordingly, the court will set a new briefing schedule for resolution of petitioner’s claims. . 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents are directed to file an answer within forty-five days from the date

of this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondents shall include with

the answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; and

2. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed. 

DATED: November 13, 2006.

12

mous2037.100sec

Case 2:05-cv-02037-MCE -JFM Document 12 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2