Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02309/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02309-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD SIMPSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-02309 CW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AS

MOOT

On May 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that the

disciplinary sanction he received for possessing controlled

medication resulted in the loss of 130 days of good time credits. 

He challenges the constitutionality of the prison disciplinary

report.

On February 18, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to show

cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. 

On April 13, 2010, while this action was pending, Petitioner

was released on parole. (Resp't Ex. 2.) 

Before the Court is Respondent's motion to dismiss the

petition on the ground that it is moot because Petitioner has been

released from custody. In the alternative, Respondent argues the

petition fails to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. 

Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the petition

is moot and DISMISSES it. 

DISCUSSION

Article III, § 2, of the Constitution requires the existence

of a case or controversy through all stages of federal judicial

Case 4:09-cv-02309-CW Document 5 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 5
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 2

proceedings. Throughout the litigation, the petitioner "must have

suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the

[respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial

decision." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477

(1990).

 An incarcerated or paroled 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 constitute 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 be maintained and not considered moot. Id.

Courts may presume that a criminal conviction has continuing

collateral consequences. See id. 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 prison disciplinary proceedings. Wilson v.

Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 539 U.S.

933 (2003). A prisoner seeking to challenge prison disciplinary

proceedings in a habeas petition must demonstrate that continuing

collateral consequences exist if the punishment imposed as a result

of the disciplinary action has expired. Id. Allegations that a

rules violation finding will affect classification, institutional

and housing assignments or privileges, and may result in a delay or

Case 4:09-cv-02309-CW Document 5 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 5
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 3

denial of parole, involve discretionary decisions too speculative

to constitute sufficient proof of collateral consequences. Id. at

481-82.

Here, Respondent claims that because Petitioner was released

on parole, he no longer has an injury satisfying the case-orcontroversy requirement, nor can he demonstrate any collateral

consequences. Therefore, Respondent maintains the present petition

should be dismissed as moot. 

The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's habeas

petition because the record shows that he is no longer in prison. 

His challenge to the prison disciplinary sanction has become moot. 

He has not presented the Court with a viable case or controversy;

thus jurisdiction is absent. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7-8. 

Additionally, Petitioner's case is moot because the Court is

incapable of redressing his asserted injury. He does not meet any

exceptions that could allow his habeas petition to survive the

mootness inquiry. He has already been assessed the time credit

forfeiture; therefore, the punishment imposed as a result of the

disciplinary action has expired. He has not alleged any continuing

collateral consequences, resulting from the disciplinary sanction

imposed upon him while he was incarcerated, that are sufficient to

avoid dismissal on the ground of mootness. See Wilson, 319 F.3d at

481. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as moot. 

Because the Court has already decided that Petitioner's case

is moot, the Court need not address Respondent's alternative

argument that the petition fails to state a cognizable claim for

habeas relief.

Case 4:09-cv-02309-CW Document 5 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 5
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 4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent's motion to dismiss

(docket no. 4) is GRANTED. The petition for a writ of habeas

corpus is DISMISSED as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment for Respondent, terminate all pending motions, and close

the file. The parties shall bear their own costs.

This Order terminates Docket no. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 6/25/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:09-cv-02309-CW Document 5 Filed 06/25/10 Page 4 of 5
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 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV09-02309 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 25, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Donald A. Simpson P-31013

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Salinas Valley, CA 93960

Dated: June 25, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-02309-CW Document 5 Filed 06/25/10 Page 5 of 5