Fox v. Craven

Ninth Circuit

Fox v. Craven

320 F. App'x 675

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2009

DocketNo. 07-35910

StatusPublished

This text of 320 F. App'x 675 (Fox v. Craven) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fox v. Craven, 320 F. App'x 675 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Timothy Allen Fox appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was improperly denied parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per cu-riam), and we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

While this appeal was pending, Fox was released on parole. To the extent Fox sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of a new parole hearing or parole eligibility determination, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.1995). To the extent Fox sought to expunge allegedly false information from his presentence report so it could not be used against him in the future, the district court properly dismissed the claim because such a claim must be brought before the sentencing state court. See Idaho Criminal Rule 32.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid[676]*676ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

***

Timothy Allen Fox appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was improperly denied parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per cu-riam), and we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

While this appeal was pending, Fox was released on parole. To the extent Fox sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of a new parole hearing or parole eligibility determination, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.1995). To the extent Fox sought to expunge allegedly false information from his presentence report so it could not be used against him in the future, the district court properly dismissed the claim because such a claim must be brought before the sentencing state court. See Idaho Criminal Rule 32.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid[676]*676ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-craven-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack