George A. Hood, Petitioner-appellant, v. J.d. Southerland, Warden, Respondent-appellee, 962 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 962 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1992) Submitted May 5, 1992. *Decided May 8, 1992

Before HUG, DAVID R. THOMPSON and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

George A. Hood, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition as moot. We affirm.

In his petition, Hood sought release on parole on the ground that the United States Parole Commission improperly denied him parole based on false information in his presentence report. The district court properly dismissed the petition as moot because Hood, who was paroled on September 30, 1990, had already obtained the relief he sought, release on parole. See Picron-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991). To the extent Hood challenged the accuracy of his presentence report in the context of the validity of his sentence, the district court properly dismissed the petition without prejudice to Hood's pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which raises the same issue. See Shabazz v. Carroll, 814 F.2d 1321, 1324 (9th Cir. 1987) (section 2255 motion provides the exclusive remedy by which a federal prisoner may attack the legality of his conviction and sentence; section 2241 petition is the remedy by which a federal prisoner may attack the manner of execution of his sentence); see also Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may review its own records to determine whether an action duplicates another action filed by the same party).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 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.