Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02096/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02096-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Johnson
Petitioner
Sisto
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2096 WBS GGH P

vs.

WARDEN SISTO, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is proceeding on the amended petition filed

March 26, 2007. Pending before the court is respondent’s July 10, 2007, motion to dismiss. For

the following reasons, the court recommends that respondent’s motion be granted.

Background

Petitioner filed the original petition on September 21, 2006. On November 29,

2006, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Respondent construed the petition to raise one

claim: the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) failed to provide petitioner with timely parole

suitability hearings. 

On March 14, 2007, the court issued an order finding that in the points and

authorities, petitioner raised a second claim alleging violation of his plea agreement. The court

Case 2:06-cv-02096-MMM Document 20 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Petitioner must file a separate habeas action if he intends to raise a claim alleging 1

violation of his plea agreement or that his plea was involuntary. 

2

vacated the motion to dismiss and ordered petitioner to file an amended petition raising one of

the two claims raised in the original petition. The court advised petitioner that he could not raise

both claims in one petition. See Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 2(e)

(petitioner seeking relief from different judgments must file separate petitions covering the

judgments of each court). 

On March 26, 2007, petitioner filed an amended petition. On the cover sheet,

petitioner states that he intends to proceed with his claim that the BPH failed to provide him with

timely parole suitability hearings. Although the petition contains some discussion of the claim

alleging violation of the plea agreement (and, possibly, a claim alleging involuntary plea), the

court construes the amended petition to allege only the claim concerning timely parole suitability

hearings.1

Analysis

Petitioner alleges that he was found unsuitable for parole by the BPH on July 11,

2003. At that time, the BPH told him that he would receive his next parole suitability hearing in

two years. Petitioner alleges that he did not receive his suitability hearing within two years of

July 11, 2003.

Respondent argues that this action should be dismissed as moot because petitioner

received a parole suitability hearing on January 19, 2006. Therefore, respondent argues,

petitioner received the relief he was seeking in this action.

The case or controversy requirement of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution requires

that “‘the parties...continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.’” Spencer v.

Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S. Ct. 978 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477-478, 110 S. Ct. 1279 (1990)). “A case is moot only if interim events have ‘completely and

irrevocably eradicated the effects’ of an allegedly improper ruling.” In re Pintlar Corp., 124 F.3d 

Case 2:06-cv-02096-MMM Document 20 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Wong v. Dept. of State, 789 F.2d 1380, 1384 (9th Cir.

1986)).

The only relief the court could order for petitioner is for the BPH to hold a parole

suitability hearing for him. As noted by respondent, petitioner received this relief in January

2006. The 2006 suitability hearing eradicated the effects of the alleged constitutional violation. 

For that reason, the court finds that this action is moot and respondent’s motion to dismiss should

be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s July 10, 2007,

motion to dismiss be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: 10/18/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

john2096.mtd

Case 2:06-cv-02096-MMM Document 20 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 3