Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03359/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03359-0/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARNEY McCLENDON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-3359 CRB (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Docs # 11 & 12)

Petitioner filed the instant pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the June 21, 2001 decision of the Governor of the

State of California to revoke a parole date granted him on February 27, 2001 by the

California Board of Prison Terms ("BPT"). Petitioner was recently released on

parole, however. 

Where a prisoner seeks release on parole and does not challenge the

validity of his conviction, his habeas petition becomes moot once he is released on

parole. See Fendler v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th

Cir. 1988); see also Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988) (a

moot action is one in which the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the

outcome). The possibility of parole revocation does not present a situation which

is “‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’” to which the doctrine of mootness

may not apply. Id. (citation omitted). 
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

Here, petitioner claims that the June 21, 2001 decision of the Governor to

revoke a parole date granted him on February 27, 2001 by BPT was not based on

evidence bearing some indicia of reliability and that it violated the Ex Post Facto

Clause. Because petitioner has now been released on parole and does not

challenge his conviction, he lacks a cognizable interest in the outcome of this

action. See Reimers, 863 F.2d at 632; Fendler, 846 F.2d at 555.

Petitioner’s contention that this action is not moot because, had he been

released earlier on parole, he would be “nearing the completion of parole instead

of just starting” does not compel a different result. The mere possibility of earlier

termination of parole supervision does not circumvent mootness. See id.

(rejecting similar claim by federal prisoner where prisoner may seek review of his

eligibility for early termination of parole by applying to the parole commission

directly). At minimum, petitioner must exhaust state administrative and judicial

remedies in connection with his apparent new claim to have his release “backdated”

before seeking federal habeas relief. Accord id. (federal prisoner seeking to have

his release backdated must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking federal

habeas relief).

For the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss (doc # 11) is

GRANTED. The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, terminate all

pending motions (see, e.g., doc # 12) as moot, and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 13, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge