Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02279/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02279-3/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

- 1 - 06cv2279

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL WALLACH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2279-LAB (LSP)

ORDER REQUIRING BRIEFING

ON ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ, Warden,

Defendant.

On September 7, 2005, Petitioner was found unsuitable for parole by California’s

Board of Parole Hearings, which set the next parole hearing for 2008. On October 10, 2006,

after exhausting state court remedies, Petitioner filed his habeas petition in this Court. After

full briefing, the Court denied the petition on August 29, 2008. Petitioner then on September

15, 2008 filed a notice of appeal, without requesting a certificate of appealability. On

November 3, 2008, the Court issued an order declining to grant a certificate of appealability

because, under Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536, 541 n.6 (9th Cir. 2008), no such

certificate was needed.

On April 22, 2010, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed its earlier holdings and

determined a certificate of appealability was required in such cases. Hayward v. Marshall,

603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). Thereafter, the appellate panel issued an order directing this

Court to either grant or deny the certificate. The order requires this Court to specify which

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02279-LAB-LSP Document 40 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 06cv2279

issues are appealable (if the certificate is granted), or why none are appealable (if the

certificate is denied).

Petitioner is represented by counsel. Because no formal request for a certificate of

appealability has ever been made, Petitioner has not specified which issues he wishes to

appeal, and on what basis. Under AEDPA, the Court can only issue such a certificate “if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and the

certificate must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the [required] showing.” Smith

v. Mahoney, 596 F.3d 1133, 1148 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and (3)).

Because of the passage of time, mootness has become a concern. Petitioner’s latest

parole hearing was scheduled some time in 2008, so it apparently has taken place. The

petition may therefore have been mooted by later decisions of the Board of Parole Hearings.

The Court is obligated to examine jurisdictional issues such as mootness, sua sponte if

necessary. ACLU of Nevada v. Lomax, 471 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 2006).

Petitioner is therefore ORDERED to file an application for a certificate of appealability

identifying the issues for appeal and showing that they are appealable. The request must

also explain why the issues present a live controversy and have not become moot as a result

of later parole hearings or decisions. As the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Petitioner

bears the burden of showing this is a live controversy. D’Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge

& Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir. 2008). The application shall not exceed fifteen

pages, not counting any attached or lodged material, and must be filed by August 9, 2010.

Respondent may, if he wishes, file a reply on the issue of mootness, no later than August

16, 2010. Respondent’s reply must not exceed seven pages, not counting any attached or

lodged material.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 8, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02279-LAB-LSP Document 40 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 2