Volpicelli v. Palmer et al, No. 3:2008cv00212 - Document 20 (D. Nev. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss. Petition dismissed with prejudice. Clerk shall enter jdgmt. P is DENIED a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Brian E. Sandoval on 07/01/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LG)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
F!LED jjcjjvgq iE; ' 1TE!: kE() w- t : pyj u:;ar1 (TLII CSEI -/FAFI TIES()FIugi xg 1 2 kJtJL - 1 20% 3 CLER4UjlDISTRIqTCOI JRT 4 yy: f . llo i 'TF1lGTOFliI cVAD/k gjjpty.y .y 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT 7 DISTRICT O F NEVADA 8 9 FERRILL J.VOLPICELLI, Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 JACK PALMER,efa/., 12 Respondents. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:O8-cv-O212-BES-VPC ORDER / 14 Thisactionisaprosepetitionforawritofhabeascorpuspursuantto28 U.S.C.j2254, 15 16 by a Nevada state prisoner. Before the Courtare respondents'motion to dismiss (Docket #15),petitioner'sopposition (Docket#18),and respondents'reply(Docket#19). l7 1. Volpicelli v. Palmer et al 18 ProceduralHistory Doc. 20 O n Decem ber12,2003,petitionerwassentenced in the Second JudicialDistrictCourt, 19 Case No.CR 02-0147,to a term of12 to 48 m onths in the Nevada Depadm entofCorrections 20 forindecent exposure,w ith a concurrentsentence of 12 to 48 m onths for open orgross 21 Iewdness. (Exhibit1).1 22 23 On February 11,2004,petitionerwas sentenced in the Second JudicialDistrictCoud, Case No.CR 02-0148,to 12 to 48 m onths,to be served consecutively to the sentence 24 25 26 The exhibits referenced in this orderare found in the Coud,s record atDocket#16. Dockets.Justia.com 1 im posed in Case No.CR 03-1263,foraiding and abetting in the com m ission ofadem pting to 2 obtain money by false pretenses. (Exhibit2). 3 OnApril1,2004,the state districtcourtadjudicated petitionera habitualcriminaland 4 sentenced him in Case No.CR 03-1263,to two consecutive term s of10 years to Iife,to run 5 consecutivelyto the sentencesimposed inCase No.CR 02-0147and CR 02-0148,(Exhibit 6 3),The courtsentenced peti tionerin Case No.CR 03-1263,to 12 months in the countyjail 7 on Count1,conspiracy to com m itcrimes againstpropedy;8 concurrentterm s oflife with the 8 possibilityofparole on Counts 2 through 8,burglal' y,to be served concurrently to Count1' ,and 9 one term oflife with the possibility ofparole afterten years on Count10,unlawfulpossession, 10 m aking,forgery orcounterfeiting of invento!'y pricing Iabels,to be served consecutive to 11 Counts 1through 9. (Exhibi t3). 12 O nApril25,2008,the Nevada Supreme Courtordered the state districtcourtto am end 13 thejudgmentinCaseNo.CR 02-148t0striketheprovisionimposingasentenceconsecutively 14 to a sentence w hich had notyet been im posed - the sentence in Case No.CR 03-163. 15 (Exhibit37). 16 On May22,2008,thestate districtcourtamendedthejudgmentofconvictioninCase 17 No.CR 02-148 and struck the provision ofthe sentence thatordered the sentence to run 18 consecutivelyto the sentence inCase No.CR 03-163. (Exhibit36). 19 O n January 6,2008,the Nevada Departm entofCorrections'OffenderM anagement 20 Coordinatorconducted atim e auditonpetitioner'ssentencefollowing thefiling ofthe am ended 21 judgmentofconviction in Case No.CR 02-148 filed on May 22,2008. (Exhibit38). As a 22 result,the sentence in CR 02-148 was restructured to run concurrently w ith petitioner's 23 sentence in Case No.CR 02-147. (/d.). 24 As a resultofthe restructuring,petitionerexpired the m axim um term ofthe sentences 25 inCaseNo.CR 02-147on March 18,2006.(/d.).Additionally,asa resultoftherestructuring, 26 /// 2 1 petitionerexpired the m aximum term ofthe sentence im posed in Case No,CR 02-148 on 2 November2,2006,(/d.). Petitionerbegan serving his concurrentIife sentences on Counts 2 through 9 in Case 3 4 No.CR 03-1263,on Novem ber3,2006,the day following the day he expired his m axim um 5 sentence in Case No.CR 02-148. (/d.). Petitionerm ailed the instantfederalhabeas petition to this Coud on April16,2008. 6 (Docket#8).Petitionerallegesthathewasdenieddueprocesswhencedaintimecreditswere 8 revoked on the basisofinsuffici entevidence. (/d.). Petitionerallegesthaton oraboutMay 12,2005,the NDOC noti fied him bywrittenchargesthathecommitted amajorviolationofthe NDOC Code ofPenalDiscipline. Petitioneralleges thathe was found guilty ofthe charges pursuantto a disciplinary hearing conducted by the NDOC. (/d.). Afterthe hearing and appeals process within the NDO C,petitioneralleges thatthe NDOC unlaw fully deprived him 13 of59 good-time credi ts. (/d.). Petitionerchallenged the disciplinaw action ina habeaspetition filed in the state district courton June 27,2006. (Exhibit4). On December18,2007,the districtcoud denied the petition. (Exhibi t23). On January 2,2008,petitionerappealed. (Exhibi t25). On April7, 2008,the Nevada Supreme Courtaffirmed thejudgmentofthe state districtcoud. (Exhibit 34). Remiqiturwasissued on May 2,2008. (Exhibit35). II. Discussion Respondents m ove to dism iss the petition on the grounds thatitis m ootand thatthe 21 petition issuccessive. (Docket#15). Adicle Il,Section 2 ofthe United States Constitution provides thatthe ''exercise of judicialpowerdependson the existence ofa case orcontroversy.''See Linerkt.Jafco,/r?c., 375 U.S.301,306,n.3 (1964). ''The case orcontroversy requirementsubsists through aII stagesoffederaljudicialproceedings,trialand appellate thepadiesmustcontinueto have a personalstake in the outcome ofthe lawsuit.'' Lewis k'.ContinentalBank Corp.,494 U.S. 3 1 472,477-78 (1990)(internalquotationsomitted). Mootness occurs when there is no Ionger 2 a case orcontroversy.Spencerk'.Kemna,523 U.S,1,7 (1998).The question ofmootness 3 mustbe resolvedbythefederalcoudbefore itassumesjurisdiction.Henry v.Mississippi,379 4 U.S.443,447 (1965). ,North Carolina v' .Rice,404 U.S.224,246 (1971). ,LinerF.Jafco,375 5 U ,s .at 304. 6 Once a prisoner's sentence has expired,some concrete and continuing injuryother 7 thanthe now-ended incarcerationorparole-some ucollateralconsequences''ofthe conviction 8 - m ustexisti fthe action is to be m aintained. Spencerv.Kem na,523 U.S,at7. A peti tioner 9 inafederalhabeasactionmusteitherdemonstrate injuw-in-factorfallwithinthosecategories 10 ofcases w here collateralconsequences are presum ed. Id. 11 A challenge to a petitioner's sentence,as opposed to the conviction itself,becomes 12 mootoncethe sentence iscompleted.U,S,B.Palomba,182 F.3d 1121,1123 (9thCir,1999). 13 Collateral consequences w ill not be presum ed in the context of prison disciplinary 14 proceedings. W lson v,Terhune,319 F.3d477,481 (9thcir.2003). 15 The Suprem e Coud has drawn a distinction between cases attacking the underlying 16 conviction and casesattackingthe calculation ofa sentence.''Nullification ofa convictionm ay 17 have im podantbenefits fora defendant,as outlined above,buturging in a habeas corpus 18 proceeding the correction ofa sentence already served is anotherm atter.' Rice,404 U,S, 19 248. A lthough i t has been presum ed thatcollateralconsequences existw hen the underlying 20 conviction is being attacked,the U,S.Supreme Coud has been unwilling to extend his 21 presum ption to othercases,such asw here the petitionerwas attacking a parole revocation. 22 Spencer,523 U.S.at8.A petitionerchallenging a sentence thathas already been served,as 23 opposedtotheunderlyingconviction,isrequiredtoallegeandproveaconcrete'injury-in-fact.'' 24 Spencer,523 U.S.at8,14. 25 Petitioner's instanthabeas petition was filed aqerhis sentences expired in Case Nos. 26 CR 02-147 and CR 02-148.As such,petitioner's claim s in the instantfederalhabeas petition 4 1 are m oot. &ee Palom bat182 F.3d at 1123. Petitionerbegan serving his Iife sentences in 2 Case No.CR 03-1263 Iong before he filed the instantfederalhabeas petition, Peti tioner 3 attacksonlythe calculation ofthe expired sentences in Case Nos.CR 02-147 and CR 02-148. 4 Therefore,collateralconsequences are notpresumed,butm ustbe alleged and proven by 5 peti tioner.Spencer,523 U.S.at8,14. Petitionerfailsto allege anyconcrete injurrin-factin 6 his petition. Petitioner's challenge to his disciplinar 'y hearing does notcreate the type of 7 collateralconsequences necessary to avoid m ootness. W ilson ?.Terhune,319 F.3d 477,481 8 (9tbcir.2003). 9 The consequences ofpetitioner's disciplinary hearing and creditfo/eiture have no 10 Iingering effect on the Iength orexpiration of the Iife sentences that petitioneris currently l1 serving in Case No.CR 03-1263. Petitionerargues that he m ight suffer delayed parole 12 eligibility underhis Iife sentences in CR 03-1263. Delayed parole eligibility is nota sufficient 13 collateralconsequence because parole eligibili ty is a discretionary actofgrace ofthe State. 14 See NRS 213.10705. In Maleng v' .Cook,523 U.S.1(1998),the Supreme Courtexpressly 15 excluded non-statutorydiscretional actsofthe State as potentialcollateralconsequencesto 16 overcome m ootness. Maleng,523 U.S.at14. Delayed parole eligibility cannotconstitute a 17 collateralconsequencetoovercom e mootness.W hetherpetitionerwould be successfulatany 18 parolehearingispurelyspeculative.Therecanbenoconcrete injury-in-fact,whichisrequired 19 to avoid m ootness. See Spencer,523 U.S.at8,14.As such,any delayed consideration for 20 parole does notconstitute a collateralconsequence to overcom e m ootness ofthe instant 21 federalhabeas petition.z 22 111. Cedificate ofA ppealability 23 In orderto proceed with hisappeal,petitionerm ustreceive a cedificate ofappealability. 24 28 U.s.c.j 2253(c)(1)' ,Fed.R.App.P.22. ,9thCir,R,22-1. ,Allen 7.Om oski,435 F.3d 946, 25 26 Because this Courtfinds that th> isjue of moptness disposes of the petition respondents'argumentthatthe instantpetl tionIssuccesslve under28U.S.C.j2244 isnoi addressed. 5 1 950-951(9*Cir.2006). ,seealso United Statesv.Mikels,236 F.3d550,551-52(9thCir.2001). 2 Generally,a petitionerm ustm ake ''a substantialshowing ofthe denialofa constitutionalright'' 3 to warranta cedificate ofappealability./d.;28 U.S.C,j 2253(c)(2);S/ack 7.McDaniel,529 4 U.S.473,483-84 (2000).$$The peti tionermustdemonstratethatreasonablejuristswouldfind 5 the districtcoud's assessmentofthe constitutionalclaimsdebatable orwrong.''Id.(quoting 6 S/ack,529 U.S.at484).Inorderto meetthisthreshold inquiry,the petitionerhasthe burden 7 ofdemonstrating thatthe issuesare debatable among jurists ofreason' ,thata courtcould 8 resolve the issues differentl y;orthatthe questions are adequate to deserve encouragem ent 9 to proceed further. Id. 10 This Courthasconsidered the issues raised by petitioner,w i th respectto whetherthey l1 satisfy the standard forissuance ofa cedificate ofappealability,and determ ines thatnone 12 meetthatstandard. The Coud willtherefore deny petitionera certificate ofappealability. 13 IV. Conclusion 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED thatrespondents'motionto dismiss (Docket#15)the 15 petition on the grounds of m ootness is G RANTED. The petition is DISM ISSED W ITH 16 PREJUDICE. 17 IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that the Clerk SHALL ENTER JUDG M ENT 18 ACCO RDING LY. 19 IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that peti tioner is DENIED A CERTIFICATE O F 20 APPEA LABILIR . 21 DATED:This 1stday ofJuly,2009, 22 23 U ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG E 24 25 26 6
]]>
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.
