Pope v. Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
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
OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND
Pe ti ti oner,
("ODOC'') brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to
Motion to Dismiss
Currently before the Court
4 6) .
For the reasons that
follow, Respondent's Motion is GRANTED.
challenging a January 2014 decision of the Oregon Board of Parole
and Post-Prison Supervision (the "Board")
1 - ORDER -
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.
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
proceedings, trial and appellate . . .
The parties must continue
to have a 'personal stake in the outcome' of the lawsuit.
v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)
(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."
4 77) .
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 -
(citing Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32 (1924)).
Assuming the "in custody" requirements of 28 U.S. C.
were met at the time of filing of a petition for writ of habeas
a parolee's challenge to the legality of the underlying
conviction always satisfies the case or controversy requirement.
This is so because "collateral consequences" of the conviction
result in "a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which
391 U.S. 234, 237
(quoting Fiswick v.
challenging a parole board decision to delay release on parole is
rendered moot by the petitioner's subsequent release.
432 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2005).
For these reasons,
the Court GRANTS Respondent's Motion to
(ECF No. 46) and DISMISSES this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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?