Hood v. U.S. Parole Com'n.

Full title: George A. HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 22, 1999

194 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir. 1999)

Opinion

194 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir. 1999) George A. HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-35281. No. CV-93-1837-TSZ United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit September 22, 1999

Submitted September 13, 1999. ²

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

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

George A. Hood, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition, see Camacho v. White, 918 F.2d 74, 77 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

Hood contends that the district court improperly determined that two of the claims in his habeas corpus petition constituted an abuse of the writ. This contention lacks merit because the petition in the instant case was Hood's second petition in which he challenged the same parole revocation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (1995); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 489-90 (1991). Hood has not demonstrated cause and prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, to excuse his abuse of the writ. See McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 493-94.

Hood next contends that the district court improperly determined that his remaining claim was moot. We disagree. Hood claimed that the Parole Board had improperly determined that he violated a protective order. This claim was rendered moot when the Parole Board rescinded this finding after Hood's state court conviction for violating the protective order was overturned, and restored Hood's credit for time spent on parole. See Fendler v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that habeas petition was moot where petitioner had already been released on parole and did not challenge the validity of underlying conviction).

AFFIRMED.