Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04216/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04216-4/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

VINCENT A. MOSBY,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-04216 SBA (PR)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S

MOTION TO AMEND RECORD,

DENYING HIS MOTION TO DISMISS,

AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(Docket nos. 16, 17)

Petitioner Vincent A. Mosby, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of parole by the California Board of Parole

Hearings (Board) on December 8, 2005.

On January 17, 2008, the Court found that Petitioner's claim appeared cognizable under

§ 2254 and ordered Respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

Before the Court is Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as moot. Respondent alleges

that on January 7, 2009, the Board found Petitioner suitable for parole. Thereafter, the governor

exercised his discretion and reversed the Board's decision. Respondent argues that the Board's 2009

Case 4:07-cv-04216-SBA Document 21 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

decision finding Petitioner suitable for parole renders moot the present challenge to the Board's 2005

parole denial. Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and Respondent filed a reply.

Also before the Court is Respondent's motion to amend the record to include Petitioner's

January 7, 2009 parole suitability hearing transcript as Exhibit A. 

DISCUSSION

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

a court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70

(1983). To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, the petitioner "must have

suffered, or be threatened with an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed

by a favorable judicial decision." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The

party asserting mootness bears the burden of establishing that there is no "effective relief" remaining

that the court could provide. Southern Oreg. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1134

(9th Cir. 2004). 

 The present action challenging the Board's 2005 decision is not rendered moot by the

Board's subsequent 2009 decision finding Petitioner suitable for parole. The alleged injury -- a

constitutionally deficient parole suitability hearing -- can be redressed effectively with a new parole

hearing. Even though Petitioner has been found suitable by the Board in 2009, the governor has

reversed that finding and Petitioner is still in custody. The present petition challenging the Board's

2005 denial has not lost its character as a present, live controversy because the alleged injury can be

redressed by a favorable judicial decision. If the Court granted the present petition, it would remand

this case to the Board to evaluate Petitioner's suitability for parole in accordance with due process of

law and retain jurisdiction to enforce its order. The Board would re-evaluate Petitioner's suitability

for parole. Even if the Board found Petitioner suitable for parole, the governor could reverse the

Board's suitability finding. At that point, the Court could review and overturn the governor's

reversal, if appropriate. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Respondent's motion to dismiss the federal petition as moot.

Case 4:07-cv-04216-SBA Document 21 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.07\Mosby4216.DENYdismiss(moot).frm 3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Respondent's motion to amend the record to include Petitioner's January 7, 2009

parole suitability hearing transcript as Exhibit A (docket no. 17) is GRANTED.

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition (docket no. 16) is DENIED.

3. Within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order, Respondent shall file an Answer

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the

Answer a copy of all state records that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

4. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse

with the Court and serving it upon Respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer. 

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision thirty

(30) days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's Answer.

5. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address. 

6. This Order terminates Docket nos. 16 and 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/12/10 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04216-SBA Document 21 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.07\Mosby4216.DENYdismiss(moot).frm 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT MOSBY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTHONY P KANE et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04216 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 15, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Vincent A. Mosby H29851

CTF-Soledad

P.O. Box 689 F-241-L

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

Dated: January 15, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04216-SBA Document 21 Filed 01/15/10 Page 4 of 4