Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00767/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00767-1/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

16-cv-00767-GPC-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Paul Hupp,

Petitioner,

v.

Kamala Harris, Secretary,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-00767-GPC-BGS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PENDING 

MOTIONS

[ECF Nos. 11, 13, 15, 20] 

Currently before the Court are four motions filed by Petitioner Paul Hupp. (ECF 

Nos. 11, 13, 15, 20.) The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the four 

motions (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 15, 20) in that:

1. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1.e.1, status conferences are not required in 

habeas corpus cases. In his motions, Petitioner’s primary ground for requesting either a 

status update or status conference is his belief that, after February 18, 2018, his Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus may be dismissed as moot because Petitioner will no longer be 

subject to a liberty restraint. (See ECF Nos. 11, 13, 15, 20.) However, no motion to dismiss 

for mootness is before the Court. Moreover, Petitioner alleges a wrongful criminal 

conviction, which is presumed to have continuing collateral consequences even after he is 

released from custody. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 8 (1998); see also United States v. 

Case 3:16-cv-00767-GPC-JLB Document 21 Filed 02/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-cv-00767-GPC-BGS

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

Hunter, 691 F. App’x 313, 314 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The completion of [petitioner’s] sentence 

moots her appeal of that sentence, but not the appeal of her conviction.”). Thus, on the 

record before the Court, the Court concludes that neither a status conference nor a status 

update (beyond that which is set forth below) is appropriate as the Petition is not necessarily

mooted merely by Petitioner’s release from custody;

2. This case was transferred to the undersigned magistrate judge on February 

21, 2018. (ECF No. 18.) Having reviewed the docket for this case, no further briefing is 

required from the parties concerning the Petition. The following 3,200-plus pages of 

materials remain pending before the Court: the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 

Respondent’s answer and lodgments, and Petitioner’s reply. (ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8.) Based 

upon the records and pleadings presently filed in this case, the Court will analyze the issues 

and issue a report containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations for 

disposition of the Petition by the district judge. See CivLR 72.1.d; 

3. As a courtesy, the clerk of court is directed to mail a current copy of the 

docket report for this case to Petitioner at his address of record; and

4. Any and all future updates from the Court in this case may be obtained by 

referring to the docket via CM/ECF PACER, at the Clerk’s Office public terminals, or 

contacting the Clerk’s Office at 619-557-5600. See www.casd.uscourts.gov. Court 

personnel are prohibited from providing time estimates for rulings, giving legal advice, or 

discussing the merits of a case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-00767-GPC-JLB Document 21 Filed 02/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2