Riley v. Scribner

276 F. App'x 659

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Steven E. Riley, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the summary dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition claiming denial of due process and other constitutional rights because he did not receive a parole hearing until three years after the statutorily required time. We affirm the district court’s holding that the case is moot. Riley has received a hearing and thus already has received the only remedy to which he would be entitled. See Burnett v. Lam-pert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir.2005) (discussing mootness); Benny v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 295 F.3d 977, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that remedy for federal prisoner entitled to parole termination hearing was mandamus petition ordering hearing).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

**

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