Case Name: Tai TRUONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin HOSHINO, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-21
Citations: 423 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 10-15117
Parties: Tai TRUONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin HOSHINO, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 686–687

Head Matter:
Tai TRUONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin HOSHINO, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-15117.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 21, 2011.
Tai Truong, Avenal, CA, pro se.
David Carrasco, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the Califor nia Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Tai Truong appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with his 2008 parole hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Truong's action on the basis of mootness because, in light of an amendment to the relevant law before his November 26, 2008 hearing, "there [wa]s no longer a possibility that [he could] obtain relief for his claim." Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Cal.Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(3) (effective November 5, 2008).
Truong's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.