Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00625/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00625-3/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

ELISELO ARRELLANO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0625 GEB GGH P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CDCR, et al., 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2001 petitioner was convicted of possession of firearms

by a felon or narcotic addict. He was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months. On August 21, 2003,

petitioner was released on parole. On September 27, 2005, petitioner’s parole was revoked and

he was returned to custody for a 12 month term.

In the instant petition, petitioner challenges the legality of the 2005 parole

revocation proceedings. On June 23, 2006, respondent filed an answer to the petition. 

According to respondent, petitioner was to be released from prison on August 24, 2006. 

On September 7, 2006, the court granted petitioner twenty days to show cause

why this action should not be dismissed as moot because his sentence on the parole revocation

had expired. Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876-77 (9 Cir. 2002)(a habeas petition is moot th

Case 2:06-cv-00625-GEB-GGH Document 15 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

after a prisoner’s release if the petition presents no case or controversy). Petitioner did not

respond to the September 7, 2006, order.

Because petitioner’s sentence on the at-issue parole revocation has expired, the

court recommends that this action be dismissed as moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 11/13/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

arr625.157

Case 2:06-cv-00625-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2