Opinion ID: 3035430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discussion: Mootness

Text: [1] Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution establishes the scope of federal court jurisdiction, which includes “all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution . . . [and] Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party . . . .” The Supreme Court has concluded that “[t]he Constitution’s case-or-controversy limitation on federal judicial authority . . . underpins . . . our mootness jurisprudence . . . .” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). Mootness is jurisdictional. See Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2000). “This means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’ ” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)). [2] Burnett argues that his actual injury traceable to the State of Oregon is the Board’s allegedly unconstitutional deferral of his parole release date by three years and eight months. Because of the specific circumstances of this case — namely Burnett’s release on parole and his subsequent reimprisonment for a parole violation — our ability to redress Burnett’s alleged injury with a favorable judicial decision is limited by the nature of habeas corpus relief. Our analysis is specifically limited to the sort of equitable relief we may grant 16742 BURNETT v. LAMPERT in response to a habeas petition, the only type of relief Burnett seeks. We do not decide whether Burnett has other remedies for the three-year, eight-month period of allegedly illegal imprisonment.4 [3] “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Federal courts have a fair amount of flexibility in fashioning specific habeas relief. “A federal court is vested with the largest power to control and direct the form of judgment to be entered in cases brought up before it on habeas corpus. The court is free to fashion the remedy as law and justice require and is not required to order petitioner’s immediate release from physical custody.” Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1461 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [4] Burnett urges us to use our equitable power to fashion habeas relief to accelerate his current projected release date of October 5, 2013 by three years and eight months — the length of time he claims he was held in illegal custody. But Burnett does not allege he is currently being held in illegal custody. Indeed, he challenges neither the legality of his original conviction and sentence nor the legality of his reimprisonment after Oregon authorities judged him to be in violation of his 4 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (monetary damages). See also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (“[I]f the district court determines that the plaintiff’s [§ 1983] action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed . . . .”) (emphasis in original); Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he unavailability of a remedy in habeas corpus because of mootness [does] permit [an inmate] to maintain a § 1983 action for damages, even though success in that action would imply the invalidity of the disciplinary proceeding that caused revocation of his good-time credits.”) (interpreting Heck v. Humphrey). BURNETT v. LAMPERT 16743 parole conditions. Burnett also does not allege that he suffers from any collateral consequences as a result of the deferral of his parole release date. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. Although both the three-year, eight-month period of incarceration Burnett is challenging and his current 127-month period of incarceration following his parole violation ultimately stem from the same conviction for rape and robbery, the two periods of time are not fungible. The immediate reason Burnett finds himself in Oregon state custody is not because his parole release date was delayed, but because he violated the terms of his parole after he was released. [5] Burnett urges us to follow McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (“McQuillion II”), and advance his currently scheduled parole release date by three years and eight months, thereby remedying his alleged injury-in-fact. But McQuillion II’s logic does not apply here because McQuillion had not been released on parole when this court considered his habeas petition, whereas Burnett has been released and reimprisoned for a parole violation. We would have been essentially lengthening McQuillion’s sentence if we had ruled that he was required to serve a term of parole after his release from prison. By the time the McQuillion II court heard the case, McQuillion had already served more time in prison than his lawful period of imprisonment and parole combined. Id. at 1015.5 In contrast, although Burnett 5 In McQuillion II, the warden of the California prison where McQuillion was being held challenged a previous decision of this court granting McQuillion’s habeas petition and ordering his release from custody. See id. at 1015. See also McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (“McQuillion I”). The warden argued that “McQuillion should not be released immediately without an accompanying three-year period of parole.” McQuillion II, 342 F.3d at 1015. This court responded “that if McQuillion had been released on the date to which he was entitled, he would have been released in May 1994. The three-year parole, which he would have been required to serve if he had been released on time, has long since expired.” Id. Although McQuillion II did not acknowledge that the three-year mandatory period of parole was only a minimum and could 16744 BURNETT v. LAMPERT has not yet served the entirety of his sentence, he is asking us to shorten the length of time he is to spend in prison. For us to accelerate Burnett’s current parole release date by three years and eight months as he suggests, we would necessarily have to question either the validity of his original sentence (or a portion of it) or his reimprisonment following his parole violation — two issues that are not before us.6