Unpublished Disposition, 874 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 874 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1989)

Nabeeh MUSTAFA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Hazel G. HAYES, Chairperson, Oregon State Board of Parole,Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87-4064.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  Feb. 17, 1989.Decided April 28, 1989.

Before CHOY, ALARCON and CANBY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Nabeeh Mustafa, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Hazel Hayes, an Oregon State Board of Parole (Board) official, in Mustafa's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

Mustafa, a flagrant parole violator, contends that he was denied due process of law "based on unlawful execution of arrest warrant and denial of parole revocation hearing within established parole board guidelines." The Board held Mustafa's parole revocation hearing in Oregon despite Mustafa's objection that his hearing should be held in Minnesota where he was temporarily confined. Because of the Board's insistence on holding the hearing in Oregon, Mustafa claims, he lost access to witnesses and evidence.

However, after defendant Hayes moved for summary judgment and provided documentation of Mustafa's parole violations, warrants for his arrest, and his parole revocation hearing, Mustafa relied solely on his complaint and one of defendant's exhibits in opposing the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) requires that the nonmoving party set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. T.W. Elec. Service, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Because Mustafa failed to present any probative evidence tending to support his claims, the district court correctly found there was no dispute as to any material fact.

Or.Rev.Stat. Sec. 144.343 requires that a parole revocation hearing be held as "promptly as convenient" when the Board has reasonable grounds to believe a parolee has violated his parole. Mustafa was given a hearing within a month after he was arrested on a parole abscond warrant in Oregon. Before that arrest, the Board was powerless to compel Mustafa's presence at a hearing because he was awaiting trial in Minnesota on two criminal charges which arose after his Oregon parole. See Erickson v. Oregon State Board of Parole, 578 P.2d 499, 501 (Or.Ct.App.1978). Mustafa could have gotten a quicker hearing had he wanted one by turning himself over to Oregon authorities after skipping bail in Minnesota.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 9th Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.