Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00851/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00851-7/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

WILLIE RAY BEASLEY,

Petitioner, No. 2:05-cv-0851 JAM KJN P

vs.

CLAUDE E. FINN, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

 /

Petitioner is proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a 2002 denial of parole by the Board of

Parole Hearings. On May 7, 2009, counsel for respondents filed a notice that petitioner was

paroled on April 22, 2009, after being found suitable for parole in a 2008 hearing by the Board of

Parole hearings. On February 12, 2010, the court ordered petitioner to show cause within thirty

days why this action should not be dismissed as moot. Petitioner has not responded or otherwise

responded to the court’s order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule

110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 twentyCase 2:05-cv-00851-JAM-KJN Document 29 Filed 04/30/10 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

2

one 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 response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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: April 30, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

beas0851.dsm 

Case 2:05-cv-00851-JAM-KJN Document 29 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2