Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02058/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02058-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:18-cv-02058-H-KSC

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN LOUIS WOODSON,

Petitioner,

v.

L. WILLIAMS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02058-H-KSC

ORDER REQUIRING

RESPONDENT TO RESPOND ON 

ISSUE OF MOOTNESS

Petitioner’s present habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenges the 

manner in which his sentence for a parole violation was carried out, calculated, and credited

by the U.S. Parole Commission. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 24, 2019, Respondent filed a status 

update informing the Court that Petitioner was released from Bureau of Prisons custody on 

February 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 18.) The Court then ordered Petitioner to show cause why 

the Court should not deny his habeas petition as moot. (Doc. No. 19.) On May 29, 2019, 

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion asking the Court for a one-month extension to 

allow Petitioner to retrieve documents that he was not permitted to take from the prison on 

his person at the time of his release. (Doc. No. 21.) Petitioner’s motion serves as a response 

to the Court’s order to show cause because it articulates his arguments for why his petition 

should not be denied as moot. (Id.) Petitioner argues that his petition is not moot because 

he remains on parole at this time. (Id.) 

Case 3:18-cv-02058-H-KSC Document 22 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-02058-H-KSC

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

A habeas petition may not be moot where the petitioner has been released from 

custody if he suffers “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended 

incarceration or parole—some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction[.]” Spencer v. 

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). However, when “a petitioner does not challenge[] the validity 

of his conviction, but rather only seeks an earlier release date, the petition becomes moot 

when petitioner is released from custody.” Wormuth v. United States, No. C 00-1536 

MJJ(PR), 2002 WL 31689358, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2002) (citing Fendler v. U.S. 

Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988); Brady v. United States Parole 

Comm., 600 F.2d 234, 236 (9th Cir. 1979); Picron–Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775–76 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

Accordingly, the Court orders Respondent to file, on or before June 7, 2019, a

response to Petitioner’s arguments on the issue of mootness.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-02058-H-KSC Document 22 Filed 05/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2