Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04367/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04367-1/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED HEMPSTEAD,

Petitioner,

 vs.

WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE

PRISON,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4367 CRB (PR)

ORDER

On October 26, 2005, petitioner filed the instant action for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Prison Terms'

("BPT") July 21, 2004 decision to deny him parole. Among other things,

petitioner claims that the evidence does not support the BPT’s decision and that

he exhausted state judicial remedies when, on October 12, 2005, the Supreme

Court of California denied his challenge to the BPT's July 2004 decision.

On February 27, 2006, the court found that petitioner's claims appear

cognizable under § 2254 and ordered respondent to show cause why a writ of

habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent has since filed an answer to the

order to show cause and petitioner has filed a traverse.

Case 3:05-cv-04367-CRB Document 7 Filed 12/11/06 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

On December 6, 2006, petitioner filed a new petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under § 2254 alleging that on December 2, 2005, the California Board of

Parole Hearings ("BPH") (formerly BPT) found him suitable for parole. On

April 17, 2006, the governor exercised his discretion and reversed the BPH's

decision, however. 

Although petition may challenge the governor's decision in his new habeas

action, it appears that the BPH's December 2005 decision finding petitioner

suitable for parole may have rendered moot petitioner's instant challenge to the

BPT's July 2004 decision finding him not suitable for parole. See, e.g., Smith v.

Brown. No. C 04-3983 VRW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2006) (finding subsequent

decision granting parole rendered moot challenge to earlier decision denying

parole, despite governor's reversal of subsequent decision). 

Within 30 days of this order, respondent shall file a brief addressing

whether BPH's December 2005 decision finding petitioner suitable for parole

rendered moot petitioner's instant challenge to the BPT's July 2004 decision

finding him not suitable for parole. Petitioner may file a response within 30 days

after service of a copy of respondent's brief. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04367-CRB Document 7 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 2