(HC) Topalian v. Yates, No. 1:2009cv00034 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as Moot and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to Enter Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/13/2009. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 12/16/2009. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Topalian v. Yates Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CARLO TOPALIAN, 10 11 1:09-cv-00034-AWI-DLB (HC) Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PETITION AS MOOT v. 12 [Doc. JAMES A. YATES, 13 Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 16 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Keither Wattley, Esq. 17 On December 12, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus in this Court. Petitioner challenges the Board of Parole Hearings August 16, 2007 19 decision finding him unsuitable for parole violated his federal constitutional rights. 20 On November 2, 2009, Respondent filed a notice that Petitioner was released on parole 21 on May 14, 2009. (Notice, Exhibit 1.) Because Petitioner has been granted the relief he 22 requested, the case is now moot. The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the 23 Federal Constitution deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor 24 Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104 S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. 25 City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues 26 presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” 27 Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1984). The Federal Court is “without power to decide 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 2 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240- 3 241, (1937). 4 RECOMMENDATION 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as moot; and, 7 2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. 8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 9 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 10 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 11 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 12 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and 14 filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 15 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 16 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 17 to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a November 13, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
