Senteno v. State of California et al

Filing 31

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, signed by District Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 9/13/11. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

FRESNO DIVISION

12
13

PHILLIP ANGEL SENTENO,

CASE NO. 08cv0694-JLS(JMA)

14
15

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

vs.
16
17
18
19

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; DERRAL
ADAMS, Warden,
Respondents.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Petitioner Phillip Angel Senteno ("Senteno"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, sought a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 writ of habeas corpus challenging the Governor's reversal of the
Board of Parole Hearings' 2006 decision to grant him parole. By Order entered December 8, 2009,
the undesigned District Judge granted Senteno's Petition (Dkt No. 13), then stayed the Order in order
to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of Respondents' appeal. The Court granted a
Certificate of Appealability in consideration of the then-pending en banc decision in Hayward v.
Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) settling the law in this Circuit governing post-AEDPA federal
habeas claims in the denial of parole context. (Dkt Nos. 18, 19.) The Ninth Circuit similarly stayed

-1-

08cv0694

1

appellate proceedings by Order entered March 12, 2010 pending issuance of the mandate in the

2

Hayward case. (Dkt No. 22.)

3

This Court entered a Case Status And Briefing Order on May 12, 2010, summarizing the

4

procedural history of this case, noting the Hayward en banc decision was filed April 22, 2010, and

5

observing that once the mandate in that case issued, the stay of appellate proceedings in this case

6

would presumably be lifted, with the appeal proceeding thereafter in the normal course. (Dkt No. 24.)

7

The Court clarified that jurisdiction over this matter remained at that time with the Ninth Circuit.

8

On April 20, 2011, the Ninth Circuit entered an Order stating: "Appellee's opposed motion

9

to dismiss this appeal as moot is granted." (Dkt No. 28.) The mandate was entered in the docket of

10

this case on June 29, 2011, stating: "The judgment of this Court, entered April 20, 2011, takes effect

11

this date." (Dkt No. 30.) Although the Ninth Circuit never remanded the matter to this Court with

12

any instructions, its intervening June 21, 2011 Order deciding Respondent/Appellant's motion to

13

extend the time to file a petition for rehearing construed that motion as one for reconsideration of the

14

April 20, 2011 order. (Dkt No. 29.) The court granted the motion to extend time, denied the motion

15

for reconsideration, and stated:

16

December 8, 2009 order and judgment granting his habeas petition has been superceded by the Board

17

of Parole Hearings' 2010 order granting parole."1 (Id..)

"Appellee Senteno does not dispute that the district court's

18

The Court construes the Ninth Circuit's June 21, 2011 Order and its June 29, 2011 Mandate

19

to mean Senteno's habeas petition in this case, including this Court's associated Order granting him

20

relief, its Judgment, and its stay Order, have all been nullified or rendered moot. Accordingly, IT IS

21

HEREBY ORDERED this case is DISMISSED with prejudice, and judgment shall be entered

22

accordingly, terminating the case in its entirety.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: September 13, 2011

25

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

26
27
28

1

Despite the Court's instructions in three prior Orders (see Dkt Nos. 18, 19, 24) that Respondents
promptly notify the Court of the result of their appeal and supply "appropriate stay disposition briefing," among
other things, the docket reflects no such communication occurred.

-2-

08cv0694