Narrative Opinion Summary
Jeffrey L. Richie appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which was limited by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging unconstitutional deferral of his parole eligibility. While the appeal was pending, Richie was released on parole. The respondent argues that the appeal is moot due to his release. Richie contends that the appeal is not moot because he was harmed by the deferment in 2000 and believes the court can remedy this by subtracting time from his maximum parole period. However, the maximum duration of parole in Oregon is dictated by his underlying conviction, which is not being challenged in this appeal. Consequently, the court finds that it cannot provide a remedy for the injury claimed by Richie, leading to the conclusion that his appeal is indeed moot. The appeal is dismissed, and this decision is not intended for publication or as precedent, except under specific provisions of 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Limitations on Judicial Remedies for Parole Eligibility Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that it could not alter the maximum duration of parole, which is determined by the underlying conviction, not being contested in the present case.
Reasoning: Richie contends that the appeal is not moot because he was harmed by the deferment in 2000 and believes the court can remedy this by subtracting time from his maximum parole period. However, the maximum duration of parole in Oregon is dictated by his underlying conviction, which is not being challenged in this appeal.
Mootness in Habeas Corpus Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the appeal moot because the petitioner had already been released on parole, and no effective remedy could be provided for the alleged harm.
Reasoning: The respondent argues that the appeal is moot due to his release... Consequently, the court finds that it cannot provide a remedy for the injury claimed by Richie, leading to the conclusion that his appeal is indeed moot.
Non-Publication and Precedential Value of Judicial Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not intended to be published or serve as precedent except under specific circumstances outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reasoning: The appeal is dismissed, and this decision is not intended for publication or as precedent, except under specific provisions of 9th Cir. R. 36-3.