(HC) Barlow v. Sisto, No. 2:2009cv02151 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/29/2010 RECOMMENDING that this case be dismissed as moot. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

(HC) Barlow v. Sisto Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DONALD BARLOW, 11 Petitioner, Respondent. 12 13 No. CIV S-09-2151 MCE GGH P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. D.K. SISTO, 14 15 16 / Introduction and Summary 17 The undersigned asked for briefing concerning whether the petition seeking 18 review of the BPH denial of parole eligibility was moot. Given the unique circumstances of this 19 case and its subsequent history, the undersigned concludes that it is moot. 20 Facts 21 Petitioner was first found suitable for parole in April of 2004. However, that 22 suitability finding was reversed by the Governor. Evidently, petitioner suffered denials thereafter 23 at the BPH level up to 2007, although the present record does not reflect that. In the instant case, 24 petitioner challenges the 2007 BPH decision that denied him parole eligibility. In 2008, 25 however, the BPH did find petitioner suitable for parole (again), but the Governor, exercising his 26 power pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 3041.2 to revoke the parole suitability grant, again reversed 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the BPH in February 2009. 2 Discussion 3 Normally, the fact that petitioner would be found suitable in a later hearing than 4 the one at issue, or even subsequently released due to a later Board/Governor’s finding, would 5 not moot the case in which a petitioner was seeking habeas relief from an earlier BPH denial. 6 That is so because the earlier determination, if vacated, could well negate or mitigate any future 7 parole period, i.e., petitioner would have expended his parole time while unduly incarcerated. 8 See Stephenson v. Martell, 2009 WL 2824738 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ( MCE DAD) citing McQuillion 9 v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). However, there is one extra scenario at work 10 here. If the 2007 BPH unsuitability finding were overturned by this court, the remedy would be a 11 re-hearing before the BPH 1 and if successful, another review by the Governor. 12 This habeas petition did not involve a favorable Governor’s review, since 13 petitioner was denied at the BPH level, and petitioner does not complain about any gubernatorial 14 action. Thus, the undersigned would be powerless to order the Governor to exercise a favorable 15 review in the event the BPH reversed its own 2007 decision – the Governor would exercise his 16 normal review of any favorable decision. The outcome of that review is not speculation– there is 17 no basis to believe that the Governor, who reversed a favorable BPH determination in 2004 and 18 2009, the latter being at issue in Barlow v. Haviland, CIV-S-10-165 JAM GGH, would somehow 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 As set forth in Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2008): In modern practice, however, courts employ a conditional order of release in appropriate circumstances, which orders the State to release the petitioner unless the State takes some remedial action, such as to retry (or resentence) the petitioner. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 89, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (describing the “common practice of granting a conditional writ,” that is, “ordering that a State release the prisoner or else correct the constitutional error through a new hearing”); Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 403, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993) (“The typical relief granted in federal habeas corpus is a conditional order of release unless the State elects to retry the successful habeas petitioner, or in a capital case a similar conditional order vacating the death sentence.”) 2 1 exercise a favorable review for a renewed 2007 decision. Issuing a conditional writ in this case 2 would be an idle act. 3 In a situation where the court cannot grant any effective relief, a case is moot. 4 Service Employees Intern. Union v. National Union of Healthcare Workers, _F.3d_, 2010 WL 5 891286 *4 (9th Cir. 2010). This is the situation here. 6 Conclusion 7 The undersigned recommends that the case be dismissed as moot. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 13 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 14 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 15 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: March 29, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 GGH:gh:035 barlow2151.157 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.