Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06854/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06854-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard Armstrong
Petitioner
Ben Curry
Respondent

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD ARMSTRONG,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6854 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge a decision by the Board

of Parole Hearings ("BPH") at a December 6, 2004 hearing that found him not suitable for

parole. Before he filed this action, petitioner had another BPH hearing on June 15, 2006, at

which he was found suitable for parole. After he filed this action, the Governor reversed the

BPH's 2006 decision, and found petitioner unsuitable for paroles. Petitioner remains in prison.

Respondent now moves to dismiss this action as moot, arguing that the BPH's 2006

decision makes petitioner's challenge to the BPH's 2004 denial of parole moot. The Ninth

Circuit has held otherwise, concluding that a later parole decision does not make moot a

challenge to an earlier decision because the problems are capable of repetition yet evading

review. See Paluzzi v. Solis, 9th Cir. No. 04-16799 (May 18, 2007 memo. disp.). Although

Paluzzi was an unpublished decision, it was a reversal in one of the undersigned's cases and

therefore persuades the court not to reach the same result that the appellate court has already

rejected. The petition is not moot. Respondent's motion to dismiss is DENIED. (Docket # 10.)

Case 3:06-cv-06854-SI Document 12 Filed 01/18/08 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

In light of the denial of the motion to dismiss, the court now sets the following new

briefing schedule for the petition:

1. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before March 21, 2008, an

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the parole hearing record that have been previously transcribed

and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

2. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before April 25, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 18, 2008 ______________________ 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06854-SI Document 12 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2