Case Name: Henry Jacob PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-19
Citations: 404 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 08-35776
Parties: Henry Jacob PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and BURY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Henry Jacob PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-35776.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.
Filed Nov. 19, 2010.
Tonia Louise Moro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Medford, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jeremy Rice, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and BURY, District Judge.
The Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Henry Jacob Parker appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot. We reverse and remand.
Parker argues that because he is currently subject to parole conditions, he is suffering an actual injury and thus his habeas petition is not moot. We agree. Although a habeas petition may be mooted by the prisoner's outright release, see Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982), prisoners released on parole "have not completed their sentences, they are serving them." United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir.2007). Because Parker is still serving the parole portion of his sentence, his petition is not moot.
Because the district court dismissed Parker's petition on the basis of mootness, it did not evaluate his constitutional challenges to the Parole Board's 2005 parole release determination. This matter is therefore remanded for consideration of the merits of Parker's constitutional claims.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.