Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01812/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01812-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

27

28

05cv1812

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKEL SHANA’E SIENZANT,

Petitioner,

v.

COMMANDER KRIS WINTERS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05CV1812-L(LSP)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241

On September 19, 2005, petitioner, appearing pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending that an alleged delay by the Navy Clemency

and Parole Board (“NC&PB) in rendering a decision on her request for parole constituted a

violation of her due process rights. Respondent filed a Return to the Petition contending that the

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim, and the petition is moot. 

Discussion

Petitioner was convicted by general court-martial of violating Uniform Code of Military

Justice Articles 92, 128 and 134. She was sentenced to 39 months of confinement, forfeiture of

all pay and allowances, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. (Petition at 3).

Thereafter, petitioner sought parole. One month prior to the decision by the NC&PB that

denied her parole or clemency, petitioner filed her petition here arguing that her due process

rights were violated because the NC&PB had not entered a decision concerning her parole

Case 3:05-cv-01812-L-LSP Document 9 Filed 01/31/08 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

27

28

2 05cv1812

request in a timely manner. But petitioner received a resolution of her request for parole from

the NC&PB. Because she received a resolution, albeit a denial of parole, to her request for

parole from the NC&PB, she has obtained the relief she sought in the present petition. 

Accordingly, her petition is moot.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED as

moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01812-L-LSP Document 9 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 2