Lane v. Navarro

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED - On or before September 15, 2017, Lane must demonstrate either that he (1) is in custody, or that (2) there are collateral consequences that satisfy Article III standing requirements. ( 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis terminated.) Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/09/2017. (Attachments: #(1) Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

RODNEY A. LANE,
Petitioner,

14
15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED

Respondent.

12
13

Case No. 17-cv-03289-WHO (PR)

Dkt. No. 4

v.
NAVARRO,

16
17
18

Petitioner Rodney Lane must show cause on or before September 15, 2017 why his
habeas corpus action should not be dismissed as moot.

19

Lane filed this action to challenge his detention by Marin County, which

20

imprisoned him for allegedly violating his probation conditions. Since the filing of this

21

action, it appears that Lane has been released from custody. If this is true, it is unlikely

22

that the Court has jurisdiction over his petition. A habeas petition challenging a revocation

23

of parole or probation is moot if the petitioner has completed the entire term of

24

imprisonment underlying the revocation unless he can demonstrate that there are collateral

25

consequences to the revocation sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of

26

Article III of the Constitution. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1998). “This case-

27

or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial

28

and appellate . . . The parties must continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of

1
2

the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-478 (1990).
Consequently, on or before September 15, 2017, Lane must demonstrate either that

3

he (1) is in custody, or that (2) there are collateral consequences that satisfy Article III

4

standing requirements. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this habeas action

5

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

6

Lane should consider whether habeas relief, which is limited to ordering petitioner’s

7

release, is what he truly wants. If Lane seeks money damages because of his allegedly

8

improper detention, he could dismiss this action voluntarily without prejudice and file a

9

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Lane’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED because the
filing fee has been paid.

12

The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. No. 4.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: August 9, 2017
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2