Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03525/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03525-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

BARRY JAMERSON,

Petitioner,

vs.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No: C 13-03525 SBA (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS

MOOT 

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The 

Court directed Respondent to file an answer to the petition. Respondent initially filed a 

motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it is a second or successive petition. Dkt. 

9. Respondent filed a request to withdraw the motion. Dkt. 11. On May 22, 2014, the 

Court granted Respondent’s request to withdraw the motion and also granted Respondent 

an extension of time to file an answer. Dkt. 13. Respondent has since filed an answer, and 

Petitioner has filed a traverse. Dkts. 14, 15.

On December 18, 2014, Petitioner filed a Notice of Change of Address, which 

indicates that his new address is 110 Roundtree Court in Sacramento, California 95831.

On December 26, 2014, Respondent filed a request to deny the petition as moot 

because Petitioner has been released from prison. Dkt. 17 at 2. In addition to relying on 

Petitioner’s Notice of Change of Address, Respondent has confirmed Petitioner’s release by 

attaching two documents. Resp’t Exs. 1, 2. The first is entitled, “Board of Parole Hearings 

Miscellaneous Decisions,” which indicates that Petitioner was found suitable for parole on 

July 16, 2014 and that on December 1, 2014 the Governor decided not to reverse the

Case 4:13-cv-03525-SBA Document 18 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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

27

28

Board’s decision. Resp’t Ex. 1. The second is a form entitled “External Movements,” 

which indicates that Petitioner was “paroled” on December 19, 2014. Resp’t Ex. 2. 

It appears that the instant petition may be subject to dismissal as moot. Specifically, 

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

all stages of federal judicial proceedings. In order to satisfy the case-or-controversy 

requirement, a habeas 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.” 

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The 

challenge of an incarcerated convict to the validity of his conviction satisfies the case-orcontroversy requirement, because the incarceration constitutes a concrete injury, caused by 

the conviction and redressable by the invalidation of the conviction. Id. Once the sentence 

has expired, however, some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended 

incarceration—some "collateral consequence" of the conviction—must exist if the suit is to 

be maintained and not considered moot. Id. Under these legal principles, the instant 

petition may well be moot unless Petitioner can show he suffers from such collateral 

consequences.

Accordingly, the Court hereby directs Petitioner to show cause why the instant 

petition should not be dismissed as moot. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this 

Order is filed, Petitioner shall file his response with the Court and serve it on Respondent’s 

counsel. Respondent shall file a reply to the response within seven (7) days of the date the 

response is filed. Should Petitioner fail to file a timely response, the petition will be 

dismissed as moot.

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at his 

aforementioned address in Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015 ______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-03525-SBA Document 18 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 2