Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00034/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00034-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLO TOPALIAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-00034-AWI-DLB (HC)

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

REFERRING MATTER BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. 18]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Keith Allen Wattley, Esq. 

On November 13, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT. This Findings and

Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. 

On December 11, 2009, Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and

Recommendation, and Respondent filed a reply on December 18, 2009. (Court Docs. 19, 20.) 

In his objections, Petitioner argues that the instant petition is not “moot until his

mandatory parole period is reduced by the amount of time his release was delayed by the Board’s

unlawful conduct dating back to 2006.” (Objections, at 1) (footnote omitted). Petitioner reasons

that he is entitled to have his mandatory parole period reduced by the amount of time he has

allegedly been unlawfully incarcerated due to the Board’s refusal to grant him release as far back

1

Case 1:09-cv-00034-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 3
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

as 2006. (Id. at 2.) 

In reply, Respondent argues that in the petition Petitioner asked only that the Board’s

2007 decision finding him unsuitable for release be vacated and he be released on parole. 

(Reply, at 3.) Respondent claims that because he did not request that he be released and

discharged from parole without serving his mandatory parole period, he cannot now proceed with

such claim. (Id.) Respondent further argues that the claim that he should be discharged from

parole is not exhausted and is predicated on the application of state law only. (Id. at 3-4.) 

Under California law, “an inmate-turned-parolee remains in the legal custody of the

California Department of Corrections through the remainder of his term, and must comply with

all of the terms and conditions of parole, including mandatory drug tests, restrictions on

association with felons or gang members, and mandatory meetings with parole officers.” 

Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 851 (2006). Thus, the conditions placed upon a parolee

constitute a concrete injury to satisfy the mootness issue. See e.g. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7-8

(finding restrictions placed upon parolee constitute a concrete injury; Jones v. Cunningham, 371

U.S. 236, 243 (1963) (same). 

In this case, Petitioner was released on parole on May 14, 2009, for a period of five years. 

(Notice of Release on Parole, Exhibit 1.) Therefore, in this situation, the petition is not moot

because if he prevails on his constitutional claim(s), this Court would credit such time toward his

determinate parole period because he has now been released subject to the restrictions of parole. 

See McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9 Cir. 2003) (indicating that proper remedy th

was immediate release from parole where parole period would have expired had there not been

constitutional violation); Thomas v. Yates, 637 F.Supp.2d 837, 842 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (finding

habeas corpus petition challenging denial of parole was not moot even though prisoner was

released to five-year determinate term because relief could still be credited toward length of

parole period). 

Respondent’s argument that such claim is not exhausted is without merit as the relief is

inherent in Petitioner’s constitutional claim. Indeed, “‘in deciding a mootness issue, the question

is not whether the precise relief sought . . . is still available; rather, the question is whether there

2

Case 1:09-cv-00034-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 3
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

can be any effective relief.’” Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Gordon, 849 F.2d

1241 (9 Cir. 1988) (quoting Garcia v. Lawn, 805 F.2d 1400, 1403 (9 Cir. 1986). th th

Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections

and Respondent’s reply, the Court concludes that the instant petition is NOT MOOT and the

Findings and Recommendation are not ADOPTED, and the matter shall be referred back to the

Magistrate Judge for Findings and Recommendations addressing the merits of the petition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 13, 2009, is NOT

ADOPTED; and

2. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00034-AWI-DLB Document 21 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 3