Pope v. Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Filing 47

ORDER: The Court GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Mootness) (ECF No. 46 ) and DISMISSES this action. Signed on 1/25/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (copy mailed to petitioner) (kms)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CHARLES S. POPE, Case No. 6:15-cv-01653-AC Petitioner, ORDER v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPEVISION, Respondent. BROWN, Judge. Pe ti ti oner, Corrections, 28 u.s.c. § a former inmate of the Oregon Department of ("ODOC'') brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 2254. Motion to Dismiss Currently before the Court (Mootness) (ECF No. 4 6) . is Respondent's For the reasons that follow, Respondent's Motion is GRANTED. Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging a January 2014 decision of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the "Board") 1 - ORDER - deferring Petitioner's parole release date for 24 months. On December 15, 2016, the Board released Petitioner from ODOC's physical custody to active postprison supervision in the community. On January 5, 2017, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis that Petitioner's release from custody rendered his request for relief moot. motion, counsel certified that, based on recent In the telephone conversations with the pro se Petitioner, counsel did not believe Petitioner opposed the Motion. The time for filing a response to Respondent's Motion has elapsed, and the Court notes Petitioner did not do so. The case or controversy provision of Article III, § 2 of the Constitution "subsists through all proceedings, trial and appellate . . . stages of federal judicial The parties must continue to have a 'personal stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit. v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) Spencer (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-478 (1955)). This means that, throughout the litigation, a petitioner "must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." 494 U.S. at 4 77) . Whether a case Id. fails (quoting Lewis, to meet the case-or-controversy requirements of Article III, and is thus moot, is a question of federal law upon which the federal court "must 2 - ORDER - pronounce final (1964) judgment." Liner v. Jafco, 375 U.S. 301, 304 (citing Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32 (1924)). Assuming the "in custody" requirements of 28 U.S. C. § 2254 were met at the time of filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a parolee's challenge to the legality of the underlying conviction always satisfies the case or controversy requirement. Id. This is so because "collateral consequences" of the conviction result in "a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the Carafas v. satisfaction the sentence 391 U.S. 234, 237 Lavalle, United States, of 329 U.S. 211, 222 (1968) (1946)). imposed upon him." (quoting Fiswick v. However, a petition challenging a parole board decision to delay release on parole is rendered moot by the petitioner's subsequent release. Lampert, Burnett v. 432 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2005). CONCLUSION For these reasons, Dismiss (Mootness) the Court GRANTS Respondent's Motion to (ECF No. 46) and DISMISSES this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~S-- day of January, 2017. ANNA J. BROWN United States District Judge 3 - ORDER -

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?