Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04750/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04750-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Dismissing Petition as Moot

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04750_dismiss-moot.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NEWMAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES HOREL, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-04750 JW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

AS MOOT

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Folsom State Prison in

Represa, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a prison disciplinary hearing at Pelican Bay State Prison

(“PBSP”) that resulted in the forfeiture of good time credits. Finding the petition

stated cognizable claims under § 2254, the Court ordered respondent to show cause

why the petition should not be granted. Respondent has filed an answer arguing the

petition should be dismissed as moot. Petitioner has not filed a traverse.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was found guilty in a prison disciplinary proceeding of making

false allegations against a peace officer while housed at PBSP. (Pet. 8.) Petitioner

Case 5:06-cv-04750-JW Document 7 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Dismissing Petition as Moot

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04750_dismiss-moot.wpd 2

was assessed 60 days credit forfeiture. Petitioner alleges that his due process rights

were violated during the prison disciplinary hearing, and seeks relief by way of

dismissal of the rule violation report (“RVR”), expungement of the RVR from his

central file, and restoration of the forfeited credits. 

Respondent asserts that the petition should be dismissed as moot because

petitioner has since filing the instant petition received the relief requested, i.e., the

“serious rule violation was dismissed, a modification order was issued, and

[petitioner]’s classification score was adjusted to reflect the restoration of credits.” 

(Resp’t at 3.) Plaintiff has filed no traverse in response to the answer. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that the action should be dismissed as moot because the

subsequent restoration of credits means that there is no longer an existing case or

controversy. Respondent contends that there is no further relief this Court can grant

petitioner. 

 Article III, § 2, of the Constitution requires the existence of a case or

controversy through all stages of federal judicial proceedings. This means that,

throughout the litigation, the plaintiff (or petitioner) “must have suffered, or be

threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed

by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477 (1990).

 An incarcerated convict’s challenge to the validity of his conviction satisfies

the case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration (or the restrictions

imposed by the terms of the parole) constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the

conviction and redressable by the invalidation of the conviction. Spencer v.

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Once the convict’s sentence has expired, however,

some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or

parole--some “collateral consequence” of the conviction--must exist if the suit is to

Case 5:06-cv-04750-JW Document 7 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Dismissing Petition as Moot

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04750_dismiss-moot.wpd 3

be maintained and not considered moot. Id. Continuing collateral consequences

may be either proven or presumed. Id. at 8. 

Although courts may presume that a criminal conviction has continuing

collateral consequences, see Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8-12 (noting that Supreme Court

has been willing to accept hypothetical collateral consequences for criminal

convictions), this presumption, however, does not extend to other contexts. See id.,

523 U.S. at 13. In petitioner’s case, the presumption of collateral consequences does

not extend to prison disciplinary proceedings. Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477,

481 (9th Cir. 2003). A prisoner seeking to challenge prison disciplinary proceedings

in habeas must demonstrate that continuing collateral consequences exist if the

punishment imposed as a result of the disciplinary action has expired. See id.

Petitioner does not meet any exceptions that could allow petitioner’s habeas

petition to survive the general mootness inquiry. The loss of good-time credits has

since been restored such that there is no longer an injury for this court to redress. 

See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 1, 7. The Court has reviewed the supporting documents

with respect to the restoration of credits: 1) the Second Level Appeal Response

regarding the RVR; 2) the modification order issued by the Inmate Appeals Office;

and 3) a classification call sheet which reflects the adjustment to plaintiff’s

classification score. (Resp’t Ex. 4 at 1-3.) The Court is satisfied that petitioner’s

forfeited credits from the challenged RVR have been restored. 

Since the injury has “ended,” there must exist some continuing collateral

consequence for petitioner’s suit to be maintained and not considered moot. Id. The

presumption of collateral consequences does not apply since petitioner is

challenging the finding of a disciplinary hearing and not his conviction. See Wilson,

319 F.3d at 481. Therefore it is petitioner’s burden to prove collateral consequences

exist. Id. Petitioner has failed to do so. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as

moot.

///

Case 5:06-cv-04750-JW Document 7 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Dismissing Petition as Moot

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04750_dismiss-moot.wpd 4

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED as moot. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

February 11, 2008

Case 5:06-cv-04750-JW Document 7 Filed 02/29/08 Page 4 of 4