Opinion
No. 08-17183.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 5, 2010.
Charles Daniel Carl, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Robert C. Cross, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-CV-001122-MCE.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Charles Daniel Carl appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary decision for possession of a controlled substance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.
We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district court properly dismissed Carl's habeas petition as moot. The state has fully briefed the issue that we certify for appeal.
The district court properly dismissed Carl's petition as moot because the possibility that the disciplinary violation may impair his future parole eligibility is too speculative to constitute a collateral consequence sufficient to meet Article Ill's case-or-controversy requirement. See Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 481-82 (9th Cir. 2003).