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

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On February 20, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner contends he was denied his due process rights during a disciplinary hearing held on

March 26, 2005. As a result of the hearing, Petitioner was placed in administrative segregation

for approximately 120 days.

DISCUSSION 

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the

Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70

104 S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346,

1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478,

481, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183 (1984). The Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that

Case 1:07-cv-00267-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 03/29/07 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

cd 2

cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246,

92 S.Ct. 402, 406 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227,

240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-464 (1937). 

The instant petition is moot because Petitioner has already served his time in

administrative segregation. A presumption of collateral consequences does not apply to prison

disciplinary proceedings, and Petitioner has not alleged collateral consequences sufficient to

avoid dismissal on the ground of mootness. Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 480 (9 Cir.2003). th

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

mootness. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00267-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2