Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00771/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00771-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew G. Guerrero
Respondent
Eric Lee Hackett
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LEE HACKETT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MATTHEW G. GUERRERO, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00771-AWI-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS 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 his petition on June 14, 2005, claiming that his parole had been

unlawfully revoked and that his subsequent re-incarceration was illegal. (Doc. 1). The only

relief Petitioner requests in his petition is “That I be released.” (Doc. 1, p. 6). On November 21,

2006, Petitioner filed a change of address with the Court indicating that he had been discharged

from parole on November 26, 2006, and would be residing at a private address in Fresno,

California. (Doc. 18). 

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 Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 

(1983); N.A.A.C.P., 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 (1982). The Court has

no power to decide cases that do not affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. 

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527-528 (9th

Case 1:05-cv-00771-AWI-TAG Document 22 Filed 04/09/07 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

2

Cir. 1996). “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; Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976);

N.A.A.C.P., Western Region, 743 F.2d at 1353.

In this petition, Petitioner challenges his re-incarceration as a result of a parole revocation

proceeding that Petitioner maintains was unlawful. The only relief Petitioner requests is his

release from incarceration. By Petitioner’s own admission, he has been discharged from parole

and released from custody. Since Petitioner’s only ground for relief concerned his release from

custody, and since that relief has now been afforded to him, there is no further relief that this

Court can provide in these habeas proceedings. Accordingly, the action is moot and should be

dismissed. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. at 481; Iron Arrow, 464 U.S. at 70.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as MOOT. This Report and Recommendation is

submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this case, 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 twenty (20) 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 Report and

Recommendation.” 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: April 6, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00771-AWI-TAG Document 22 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 2