Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00709/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00709-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Prison Terms
Respondent
William Stokes
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM STOKES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S–05-0709 ALA P

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

Respondent. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Petitioner, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

“[A] case becomes moot ‘when 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

(1982), (quoting United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980)) (quoting

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). The plaintiff “must have suffered, or be

threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a

favorable judicial decision” for the duration of the litigation. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7

(1998)) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). In a parole

matter, “Once the convict’s sentence has expired . . . some concrete and continuing injury other

than the now-ended incarceration or parole-some “collateral consequence” of the convictionCase 2:05-cv-00709-ALA Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 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

2

must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. 

Respondent has alleged that petitioner’s application is moot because the petitioner

has reached the statutory maximum of his sentence, and was discharged from parole on

September 15, 2005. Answer at 4. Petitioner will therefore be ordered to show cause, in light of

the fact he was discharged from parole on September 15, 2005, why this action should not be

dismissed as moot because of the existence of some concrete and continuing injury or collateral

consequence. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

Petitioner show cause in writing within thirty days why this action should not be

dismissed because the matter is moot. Petitioner’s failure to respond to this order will result in

the dismissal of this action. 

DATED: July 25, 2007

/s/ Arthur Alarcón

_________________________________________

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:05-cv-00709-ALA Document 17 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 2