Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00458/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00458-0/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

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Warren Capaiu, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-458-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner James Warren Capaiu, formerly confined in the Arizona State Prison

system, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will deny the Petition as moot.

According to Petitioner, his probation in Maricopa County Superior Court case #CR1995-006250 was revoked and he was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison. Petitioner was

released on parole on October 22, 2006. His parole expired on March 1, 2007.

Petitioner’s Petition no longer meets the “case-or-controversy” requirement under

article III, § 2, of the United States Constitution. The “case-or-controversy requirement

subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. . . . The parties

must continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.” Spencer v. Kemna,

523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78

(1990)). 

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

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

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

conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction.” Id. However, once a convict’s

Case 2:07-cv-00458-DGC--DKD Document 3 Filed 03/19/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

sentence has ended, some continuing injury other than the now-expired term of incarceration

or parole – some collateral consequence of the conviction – must exist to maintain the suit.

Id.

Petitioner is not challenging his underlying conviction; he only challenges the

revocation of his probation. Petitioner raises five grounds for relief, all of which concern the

revocation of his probation. Petitioner served his prison term on the revocation, was released

on parole, and has now completed his parole term. His Petition, therefore, is moot. See id.

at 8-16 (finding moot a habeas petition challenging parole revocation procedures after the

petitioner was released from prison).

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is

denied as moot and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00458-DGC--DKD Document 3 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 2