(HC) Cunningham v. Finn et al, No. 2:2007cv01924 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 04/14/09 recommending that this action be dismissed as moot. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(HC) Cunningham v. Finn et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner, No. 2:07-cv-1924-GEB-JFM (HC) vs. CLAUDE E. FINN, et al., Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / Petitioner is a former state prisoner on parole proceeding pro se with an 17 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By this action, petitioner 18 challenges a 2006 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings to deny him a parole date. 19 On March 9, 2009, petitioner filed a notice of change of address in which he informed the court 20 that he was found suitable for parole at a parole hearing on September 17, 2008 and released 21 from state prison on February 20, 2009. 22 As a result of petitioner’s March 9, 2009 notice, by order filed March 13, 2009 the 23 parties were ordered to file within twenty days briefs addressing whether this action should be 24 dismissed as moot. On March 27, 2009, respondents filed a response to the order to show cause 25 in which they contend that this action has been mooted by petitioner’s release from prison on 26 parole. Petitioner has not responded in anyway to the order to show cause. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 “A moot action is one in which the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 2 outcome.” Reimers v. State of Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988). Petitioner has been 3 released on parole and there is no showing that any further relief would be available to petitioner 4 were the merits decided is his favor. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed as moot. See 5 Reimers, id. 6 7 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action 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 twenty 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 11 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 12 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 13 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 14 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: April 14, 2009. 16 17 18 19 20 12 cunn1924.fr 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.