Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03978/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03978-4/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)

---

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

Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot; Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.13\Stockton978hcmoot.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JOHN STOCKTON, JR.,

Petitioner,

 vs.

GREG D. LEWIS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 13-3978 RMW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AS MOOT; DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court ordered respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. Respondent has filed an answer, and petitioner has filed a traverse. Petitioner has also

filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing, to which respondent has filed an opposition, and

petitioner has filed a reply. However, for the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the

petition as moot.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted of murder, and sentenced on October

16, 1995 in Tehama County Superior Court. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 29 years to

life in state prison. On December 3, 2009, petitioner was housed at Pelican Bay State Prison,

where he was validated as an associate of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. As a result, he

was placed in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) for an indeterminate term. Petitioner

Case 5:13-cv-03978-RMW Document 25 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 4
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

 The Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on November 2, 2015. 

Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot; Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.13\Stockton978hcmoot.wpd 2

challenged his gang validation and placement in the SHU via administrative appeals and the state

courts, and was denied. Petitioner also challenged that SHU placement in this court, and was

denied. See Stockton v. Lewis, No. 11-5562 RMW (N.D. Cal. denied Feb. 10, 2015) (“Stockton

I”).1 

Petitioner now challenges the November 30, 2011 periodic review of his indeterminate

SHU placement. Petitioner filed the underlying federal habeas petition on August 27, 2013. In

his petition, petitioner alleges that, on November 30, 2011, he appeared before the Institutional

Classification Committee (“ICC”) for a periodic review of his SHU placement after being

validated as a gang member in 2009. As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that:

(1) he did not receive due process at the ICC hearing, and (2) his detention in the SHU, and

specifically, his being labeled as “active” in gang activity was not supported by “some

evidence.”

Respondent has filed an answer responding to the merits of petitioner’s petition. 

Petitioner filed a traverse, and acknowledged that, on April 20, 2015, petitioner was released

from the SHU. Petitioner has requested an evidentiary hearing. Respondent has opposed the

request, and in his opposition, argues that petitioner’s petition is now moot.

DISCUSSION

Article III, § 2, of the Constitution requires the existence of a case or controversy through

all stages of federal judicial proceedings. This means that, throughout the litigation, the

petitioner “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the

[respondent] and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Continental

Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). A case becomes moot “when the parties lack a legally

cognizable interest in the outcome.” Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 623 F.3d

1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). “[A] dispute solely about the meaning of

a law, abstracted from any concrete actual or threatened harm, falls outside the scope of the

constitutional words ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 93 (2009).

Case 5:13-cv-03978-RMW Document 25 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 4
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

 The court takes judicial notice of its own order in Stockton I. The court reminds

petitioner that, “petitioner’s argument regarding the loss of good time credits misstates the law

and ignores a critical difference between the treatment of good time credit in disciplinary

hearings and in gang validations. In disciplinary hearings, earned good time credits are taken

away, resulting in increased procedural due process protections because an otherwise earlier

release date may be invalidated. Under California Penal Code § 2933.6(a), however, an inmate

who has been validated in a gang does not lose earned credit, but rather becomes ineligible to

earn additional credits while in segregated housing. Petitioner’s inability to earn additional

credits does not alter a previously earned release date.” Stockton I, Docket No. 31 at 2.

Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot; Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.13\Stockton978hcmoot.wpd 3

An incarcerated convict’s (or a parolee’s) challenge to the validity of his conviction

satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration (or the restrictions

imposed by the terms of the parole) constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and

redressable by the invalidation of the conviction. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 

Once the convict’s sentence has expired, however, some concrete and continuing injury other

than the now-ended incarceration or parole-some “collateral consequence” of the

conviction-must exist if the suit is to be maintained and not considered moot. Id. 

When petitioner first filed this petition, habeas jurisdiction was present because petitioner

was seeking release from the SHU to the general prison population. See Nettles v. Grounds, 788

F.3d 992, 1004-06 (9th Cir. 2015). Petitioner was also seeking the “restoration” of “withheld”

good-time credits because petitioner was unable to accrue good time credits while in the SHU.2

However, petitioner has not yet reached his minimum eligible parole date (“MEPD”), which is

March 5, 2019. (Resp. Ans., Ex. 9.) Petitioner’s inability to earn good time credits while in the

SHU does not alter a previously earned release date, and success on this claim would not

“necessarily spell speedier release.” Nettles, 788 F.3d at 1003. Moreover, even assuming that

some amount of petitioner’s good time credits were forfeited as a punishment, restoration of

those credits would not necessarily accelerate petitioner’s release from custody because the

credit restoration on the duration of confinement is “too attenuated” to support habeas

jurisdiction. See id. Thus, the fact that petitioner was unable to earn good time credits while in

the SHU does not confer habeas jurisdiction on this petition.

As respondent notes, petitioner has already received the primary relief that the court

Case 5:13-cv-03978-RMW Document 25 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot; Denying Certificate of Appealability

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.13\Stockton978hcmoot.wpd 4

could have provided: to be released from the SHU. See Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 430 (1963)

(recognizing that a habeas court only has the power to release the body of the prisoner), 

overruled on other grounds by Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87 (1977). Petitioner was

released from the SHU on April 20, 2015, and approved for transfer to High Desert State Prison

in general population. (Traverse, Ex. 1.) There are no “collateral consequences” for petitioner

such that success on this habeas petition can remedy. See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096,

1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissing appeal as moot on due process challenge to gang validation

and SHU placement because the petitioner was released from the SHU, and there were no

collateral consequences). Thus, petitioner’s case is DISMISSED as moot. 

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, the petitioner’s case is DISMISSED as moot. The clerk shall terminate all

pending motions and close the file.

Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that his claims amounted to a denial

of his constitutional rights, or demonstrate that a reasonable jurist would find the denial of his

claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a

certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

3/11/2016

Case 5:13-cv-03978-RMW Document 25 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 4