1 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MICHAEL EVANS, 

 Case No. 6:15-cv-00500-JE 

 Petitioner, 

 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 v. 

 

GUY HILL, 

 Respondent. 

JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge. 

 In September 1992, petitioner was convicted of two counts of 

Robbery in the Second Degree and sentenced to concurrent 10-year 

sentences which were to be served consecutively to a previouslyimposed sentence from the State of Washington. Respondent’s 

Exhibit 101. When petitioner began serving his Oregon sentence 

in February 2012, the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison 

Supervision (“the Board”) determined that his Oregon prison term 

would be 38 months. Accordingly, it set his release date at 

April 6, 2015. Respondent’s Exhibit 103, pp. 97-99. Petitioner 
 2 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

took administrative and state judicial appeals from this 

decision, but was unsuccessful. 

 On March 26, 2015, petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleges that the 

Board miscalculated his criminal history risk score and 

aggravating factors in violation of his right to due process. He 

asks the court to declare the Board’s 2012 Order null and void 

and invalidate his 38-month prison term. 

 The State timely filed its Answer and Response to the 

Petition wherein it asserts that because petitioner was released 

from prison to parole on April 6, 2015, this case is moot and 

should be dismissed with prejudice. Although petitioner’s 

supporting memorandum was due on December 28, 2015, he has not 

filed such a document with the court or offered any other 

communication in this case. In this respect, it appears 

petitioner has abandoned this case. 

 The court has nevertheless reviewed the Petition in light of 

the record and determined that petitioner’s release to parole 

moots his habeas corpus challenge where he can no longer allege 

that he is illegally confined pursuant to the Board’s 2012 Order, 

and the court cannot offer him the relief he seeks. See Spencer 

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998) (“We are not in the business of 

pronouncing that past actions which have no demonstrable 

continuing effect were right or wrong.”); Burnett v. Lampert, 432 

F.3d 996, 1000-1001 (9th Cir. 2005) (inmate’s challenge to parole 

deferral is moot after he was released to parole because the 

court cannot redress the alleged injury with a favorable 
 3 – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

decision). Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

should be dismissed. 

RECOMMENDATION 

 For the reasons identified above, the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (#1) should be dismissed and a judgment should be 

entered dismissing this case with prejudice. The court should 

decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that 

this action no longer presents an actual controversy. 

SCHEDULING ORDER

 This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a 

district judge. Objections, if any, are due within 17 days. If 

no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation 

will go under advisement on that date. 

 If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 

days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the 

response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings 

and Recommendation will go under advisement. 

 DATED this 23rd day of February, 2016. 

 

 __/s/John Jelderks____________ 

 John Jelderks 

United States Magistrate Judge