Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02170/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02170-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERENCE B. HARRIS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2170 RRB KJM P

vs.

S. KERNAN, Warden, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prison inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, challenging his 2002 denial of parole. He argues that the board’s decision is not

supported by the requisite “some evidence” and that continued reliance on the facts of the offense

violates due process.

On June 15, 2007, this case was reassigned from Judge Levi to Judge Beistline;

the copy of the order served on petitioner was returned to the court as undeliverable. 

A member of the court’s staff called the CDCR’s locator number and learned that

petitioner was paroled on May 7, 2007. Accordingly, this action is moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02170-JKS-KJM Document 15 Filed 08/30/07 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

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 31, 2007. 

2

harr2170.157

Case 2:04-cv-02170-JKS-KJM Document 15 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2