Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00654/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00654-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Benitez
Petitioner
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR BENITEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00654 LJO DLB HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 8, 2008, and

challenges the Board of Parole Hearings’ 2005 decision finding him unsuitable for release. 

(Court Doc. 1.) Respondent filed an answer to the petition on September 8, 2008, and Petitioner

filed a traverse on October 8, 2008. (Court Doc. 10, 12.) 

The Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in a prior petition for writ of habeas

corpus filed by Petitioner in this Court, case number 1:06-cv-00142-LJO SMS (HC) Benitez v.

Rawers There, Petitioner challenged a prior the Governor’s 2003 decision, and Respondent 1 2

submitted evidence that subsequent to Petitioner’s release on parole on April 9, 2009, Petitioner

was removed from the United States by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. 

(1:06-cv-00142-LJO-SMS (HC), Court Document No. 36, Notice of Removal.) Therefore, the

Petition for Writ of habeas Corpus in 1:06-cv-00142 LJO SMS HC was dismissed as moot on

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, this Court may take judicial notice of filings in

1

another case. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916 n.3 (9 Cir. 2003) (materials from a proceeding in another

th

tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting

that a court may take judicial notice of “matters of public record”); United States v. Camp, 723 F.2d 74`, 744 n.1 (9

th

Cir. 1984) (citing examples of judicially noticed public records).

Petitioner’s inmate number (C-34789) is the same in both actions.

2

1

Case 1:08-cv-00654-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 04/14/10 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

April 9, 2010. (Id. at Court Docs. 37-38.)

For the same reasons the instant Petition is also MOOT. 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 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). To satisfy the Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant “must have

suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Iron Arrow,

464 U.S. at 70, 104 S.Ct. at 375; Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96

S.Ct. 1617, 1924 (1976); NAACP, Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353. Because Petitioner has

been removed from the United States, the instant challenge to the Board’s 2005 decision finding

him unsuitable for release on parole is MOOT because he has been removed from the United

States. 

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as MOOT; and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner was released from custody on April 9, 2009 to a 5-year determinate term, and subsequently

3

deported to Mexico. (1:06-cv-00142 LJO SMS (HC) Court Docs. 30, 36 .)

2

Case 1:08-cv-00654-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2