Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00267/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00267-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Clark
Respondent
Manuel Franco
Petitioner

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL FRANCO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

KEN CLARK, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00267 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #5]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 29, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DISMISSED as moot. The Magistrate Judge further recommended

that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days

of the date of service of the order. 

On May 3, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner

contends the petition is not moot because his case falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine

Case 1:07-cv-00267-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/25/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

as a case that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Spencer v. Kenma, 523 U.S. 1, 17-19

(1998). Petitioner argues he is suffering a collateral consequence of being denied parole which will

likely continue each time he is considered for parole.

Petitioner’s argument is without merit. As stated by the Magistrate Judge, the presumption of

collateral consequences does not apply to prison disciplinary hearings. Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d

477, 480 (9 Cir.2003). Furthermore, because the decision “whether to grant parole is left to ‘the th

judgment of the’ Board of Prison Terms, Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402, the likelihood of delayed or

denied parole is a type of nonstatutory consequence dependent on discretionary decisions that is

insufficient to apply the presumption of collateral consequences.” Id., at 481, citing, Spencer, 523

U.S. at 13 (rejecting the notion that the possibility of an enhanced future sentence constitutes a

collateral consequence).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 29, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00267-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 2