From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffman v. Marshall

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 13, 2010
362 F. App'x 667 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 07-56856.

Submitted December 15, 2009.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed January 13, 2010.

Robert Edwin Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.

Lora Fox Martin, Esq., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-00340-R.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Robert Edwin Hoffman, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the California Board of Prison Terms' ("the Board") decision determining him not suitable for parole.

The Board subsequently determined that Hoffman was suitable for parole, the Governor declined to exercise his discretion to review the decision, and Hoffman has now been released on parole. Therefore, this appeal is moot. See Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Fendler v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hoffman v. Marshall

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 13, 2010
362 F. App'x 667 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Hoffman v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:Robert Edwin HOFFMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 13, 2010

Citations

362 F. App'x 667 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Hyde v. Moore

nting habeas relief where petitioner "had no prison disciplinary actions other than a 128 in 2005[,] [the…