Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02195/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02195-2/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.08\Huynh195dismoot.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAM VAN HUYNH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-2195 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a decision by the Governor of California (“Governor”), reversing

the 2002 Board of Parole Hearings’ (“Board”) grant of parole. 

In 1989, petitioner was sentenced to a term of 17 years-to-life in state prison after his

conviction for second degree murder in Santa Clara County Superior Court. In 2002, the

California Board of Prison Terms found petitioner to be suitable for parole. In 2003, the

Governor reversed this decision. Petitioner challenged this decision in a habeas petition filed in

the superior court, which petition was granted and the Governor’s decision was vacated. 

Respondent appealed, and in 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed and modified the

superior court’s decision by allowing the Governor to again review the reinstated grant of parole. 

Based upon the appellate court’s decision, the superior court, on April 14, 2006, vacated the

Governor’s 2003 parole denial and remanded the matter to the Governor for reconsideration of

*E-FILED - 3/24/10*

Case 5:08-cv-02195-RMW Document 10 Filed 03/24/10 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.08\Huynh195dismoot.wpd 2

his decision “if he so chooses.” 

Meanwhile, petitioner had again appeared before the Board in 2005 for a subsequent

parole hearing. Again, the Board found petitioner to be suitable for parole. On April 27, 2006,

the Governor again reversed the Board’s decision and denied parole. This decision did not

mention the Board’s 2002 suitability finding. 

Because he did not hear from the Governor about the Board’s reinstated 2002 grant of

parole, petitioner filed a further habeas petition in the superior court on September 11, 2006. 

The superior court granted the writ, and ordered petitioner’s immediate release. Respondent

appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which again reversed the superior court’s decision

finding the Governor’s April 27, 2006 decision was meant to also apply to the 2002 grant of

parole. On March 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review in which

petitioner claimed, as he does here, that the Governor violated his right to due process by failing

to make a timely and definitive statement that he was reversing the Board’s 2002 grant of parole. 

Shortly thereafter, petitioner filed the instant petition, claiming that the Governor’s failure to

issue a definitive statement reversing the Board’s 2002 grant of parole violated his federal right

to due process.

Since then, on December 11, 2008, petitioner was released on parole. Where a prisoner

seeks release on parole and does not challenge the validity of his conviction, his habeas petition

becomes moot once he is released on parole. See Fendler v United States Bureau of Prisons, 846

F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999-1001 (9th Cir.

2005) (finding habeas petition still moot after petitioner violated parole and was reincarcerated);

Reimers v Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988) (a moot action is one in which the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome). 

Here, petitioner claims that the Governor’s failure to issue a definitive statement

reversing the Board’s 2002 grant of parole was unlawful. Because petitioner has now been

released on parole and does not challenge his conviction, he lacks a cognizable interest in the

outcome of this action. See Reimers, 863 F.2d at 632. That the relief he seeks may result in the

possible earlier termination of parole supervision does not circumvent mootness. See Fendler,

Case 5:08-cv-02195-RMW Document 10 Filed 03/24/10 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.08\Huynh195dismoot.wpd 3

846 F.2d at 555 (rejecting claim of exception to mootness by federal prisoner who could seek

review of his eligibility for early termination of parole by applying to the parole commission). 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

is DISMISSED as moot. The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

3/23/10

Case 5:08-cv-02195-RMW Document 10 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 3