Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01657/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01657-10/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

PAUL STAFFIERO, No. CIV S-07-1657-FCD-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, brings this petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of parole in 2004. 

On December 4, 2009, petitioner filed a status report informing the court that he has been granted

parole and was released from custody on December 3, 2009. The court thereafter issued an order

requiring the parties to address whether this action is now moot given petitioner’s release on

parole in December 2009. Pending before the court are the parties’ briefs. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01657-FCD-CMK Document 47 Filed 05/07/10 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

2

The parties agree that, in general, this court cannot issue a decision in a case

which has become moot. See Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (1983); see also

Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982). Petitioner contends that this case is not mooted by his

December 2009 release because he seeks both release from custody to parole (which has

happened) and a release from any and all conditions of parole (which has not happened). 

Respondents argue that the case is in fact moot because the only relief this court could grant on

petitioner’s petition – an order for a new parole suitability hearing – has already been granted

and, as such, the controversy is no longer live. 

The court agrees with respondents. Petitioner’s argument flows from a

misconception of the relief this court can or should grant in parole challenge cases. If petitioner

is correct and the denial of parole in 2004 was not accompanied by the constitutionally required

quantum of substantive due process (e.g., “some evidence”), then all this court would be able to

do is order a new suitability hearing upon explanation of the relevant constitutional standard. 

The court would not be in a position to order release on parole. Under California law, such a

determination can only be made upon a showing that the inmate does not pose a current danger to

the community. Given that the record in this case is necessarily limited to facts leading up to the

denial of parole in 2004, it would be impossible for the court to make any kind of findings as to

current dangerousness. Therefore, the court could not order immediate release. Further,

California law contemplates that the Board of Prison Terms make the suitability determination,

not a federal habeas court. 

Therefore, the court concludes that petitioner’s release on parole in December

2009 moots the instant challenge to the denial of parole in 2004. See Burnett v. Lampert, 432

F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that habeas petition challenging deferral of parole

rendered moot by inmate’s release on parole); see also Somers v. Clark, 2010 WL 1416775 (E.D.

Cal. 2010); Luna v. Curry, 2010 WL 1027871 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Sena v. Marshall, 2009 WL

2821357 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 

Case 2:07-cv-01657-FCD-CMK Document 47 Filed 05/07/10 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

3

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed

as moot. 

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 6, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01657-FCD-CMK Document 47 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 3