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)

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 -