Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05171/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05171-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON PERROTON, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5171 OWW SMS HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF PETITION AS MOOT

vs.

PAUL SCHULTZ, Warden, 

[Doc. 14]

Respondent.

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

In his first amended petition for writ of habeas Petitioner makes three contentions. First, he

contends that the United States Parole Commission lacked the jurisdiction to revoke or amend the

conditions of his mandatory release date. Second, Petitioner contends that the basic principles of res

judicata preclude the forfeiture of his mandatory release date. Third, Petitioner contends that he is

being denied the equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution deprives

the court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104

S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th

Case 1:04-cv-05171-OWW -WMW Document 27 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a

legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183

(1984). The Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the

litigants before them” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 406 (1971) per curiam,

quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-464 (1937). To

satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant “must have suffered some actual injury

that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70, 104 S.Ct. at 375;

Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1617, 1924 (1976); NAACP,

Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.

The court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination

by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United

States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). Judicial notice may be taken of court records.

Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.);

see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4

th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown

Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6

th Cir. 1980). This court hereby takes judicial notice of the

Order Dismissing Motion for Habeas Corpus as Moot in Perroton v. Andrews, 04 CV 5500 OWW SMS

HC, in which the court found that Petitioner had been released from custody on October 19, 2004.

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is rendered moot when the petitioner is released from

custody, unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that some collateral, ongoing consequence would

result without habeas relief. See Spencer v. Kemma, 523 U.S. 1, 14 (1998). Here, no such collateral

consequence is alleged. Accordingly, the court finds that this petition has been rendered moot.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition for writ of habeas

corpus be DISMISSED as moot. 

TheseFindings and Recommendation are submittedto the assignedUnitedStatesDistrict

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30)

days after being served with a copy, 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

Case 1:04-cv-05171-OWW -WMW Document 27 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 3
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

and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days

(plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05171-OWW -WMW Document 27 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 3