Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02124/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02124-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BAZLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2124 GEB KJM P

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a former county jail inmate, proceeding pro se with a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner alleges that his parole revocation hearing has been delayed, in violation

of the order in Valdivia, et al v. Schwarzenegger, Civ. No. S-94-671 LKK GGH. However,

petitioner has filed a changed of address, showing that he is out of custody. 

Before this court may proceed, it must determine whether the issues raised in the

instant petition present an actual “case or controversy” upon which it may grant relief. Spencer

Case 2:06-cv-02124-GEB -KJM Document 6 Filed 11/21/06 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

2

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Jackson v. California Dept. of Mental Health, 399 F.3d 1069,

1071 (9th Cir.), amended on denial of rehearing by Jackson v. California Dept. of Mental Health,

417 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2005). As the Supreme Court observed:

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.

Once the convict's sentence has expired, however, some concrete

and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or

parole-some “collateral consequence” of the conviction-must exist

if the suit is to be maintained. 

Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. In Spencer, the petitioner’s habeas petition challenged procedures used

during his parole revocation hearing; during the pendency of the case, he was released from

prison. The court refused to presume that collateral consequences flowed from the parole

revocation sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement and rejected petitioner’s

speculation that the revocation could be used in a detrimental way in the future. 

Because petitioner has been released, his petition may not present a case or

controversy. Petitioner will be given the opportunity to show the consequences, if any, from the

revocation that may satisfy the case or controversy requirement. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner is directed to show cause

why this action should not be dismissed for failing to present a live case or controversy. Failure

to respond will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

DATED: November 21, 2006. 

2/bazl2124.osc

Case 2:06-cv-02124-GEB -KJM Document 6 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2