Charles Daniel Carl v. Robert Horel; Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES DANIEL CARL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT HOREL; ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-17183
D.C. No. 2:07-CV-001122-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district1
court properly dismissed Carl’s habeas petition as moot. The state has fully briefed
the issue that we certify for appeal.
08-17183 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.1
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
III’s case-or-controversy requirement. See Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 481-
82 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --