Moran v. Hartley

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 12 ; ORDER DISMISSING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 ; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/26/09: The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as moot. (CASE CLOSED) (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JUAN MORAN, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 14 JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state parolee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. 19 On March 30, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in 20 this Court. Petitioner claims the California Board of Parole Hearings ("Board") violated his federal 21 constitutional rights by denying parole on November 6, 2007. 22 On June 29, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case for mootness. Respondent 23 states that Petitioner has been granted parole release. He further states that on June 5, 2009, the 24 Governor declined to review the Board's grant of parole. Because Petitioner has been granted the 25 relief he requested, the case is now moot. The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the 26 Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y 27 v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104 S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of 28 U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia cd UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-CV-00571 LJO SMS HC ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. #12] ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT v. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the "the issues presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal Court is "without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them." North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241, (1937). ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as moot; and 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 August 26, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cd 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?