IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHARLES S. POPE, 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01653-AC 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND 

POST-PRISON SUPEVISION, 

Respondent. 

BROWN, Judge. 

ORDER 

Pe ti ti oner, a former inmate of the Oregon Department of 

Corrections, ("ODOC'') brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 2254. Currently before the Court is Respondent's 

Motion to Dismiss (Mootness) (ECF No. 4 6) . For the reasons that 

follow, Respondent's Motion is GRANTED. 

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

challenging a January 2014 decision of the Oregon Board of Parole 

and Post-Prison Supervision (the "Board") deferring Petitioner's 

1 - ORDER -

Case 6:15-cv-01653-AC Document 47 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 3
parole release date for 24 months. On December 15, 2016, the Board 

released Petitioner from ODOC's physical custody to active postprison supervision in the community. 

On January 5, 2017, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis that Petitioner's 

release from custody rendered his request for relief moot. In the 

motion, counsel certified that, based on recent telephone 

conversations with the pro se Petitioner, counsel did not believe 

Petitioner opposed the Motion. The time for filing a response to 

Respondent's Motion has elapsed, and the Court notes Petitioner did 

not do so. 

The case or controversy provision of Article III, § 2 of the 

Constitution "subsists through all stages of federal judicial 

proceedings, trial and appellate ... The parties must continue 

to have a 'personal stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit. Spencer 

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank 

Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-478 (1955)). This means that, throughout 

the litigation, a petitioner "must have suffered, or be threatened 

with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be 

redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Id. (quoting Lewis, 

494 U.S. at 4 77) . Whether a case fails to meet the 

case-or-controversy requirements of Article III, and is thus moot, 

is a question of federal law upon which the federal court "must 

2 - ORDER -

Case 6:15-cv-01653-AC Document 47 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 3
pronounce final judgment." Liner v. Jafco, 375 U.S. 301, 304 

(1964) (citing Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32 (1924)). 

Assuming the "in custody" requirements of 28 U.S. C. § 2254 

were met at the time of filing of a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, a parolee's challenge to the legality of the underlying 

conviction always satisfies the case or controversy requirement. 

Id. This is so because "collateral consequences" of the conviction 

result in "a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which 

survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed upon him." 

Carafas v. Lavalle, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968) (quoting Fiswick v. 

United States, 329 U.S. 211, 222 (1946)). However, a petition 

challenging a parole board decision to delay release on parole is 

rendered moot by the petitioner's subsequent release. Burnett v. 

Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2005). 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Respondent's Motion to 

Dismiss (Mootness) (ECF No. 46) and DISMISSES this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~S-- day of January, 2017. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

3 - ORDER -

Case 6:15-cv-01653-AC Document 47 Filed 01/25/17 Page 3 of 3