852 F.2d 1289
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Will Erman JONES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Daniel McCARTHY, et al., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 87-5587.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 1987.*
Decided July 21, 1988.
Before KOELSCH, POOLE and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges:
MEMORANDUM**
Jones, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Jones contends that the California Board of Prison Terms improperly retained jurisdiction over him after he had completed a year of "nonsuspended parole." Jones sought only release from custody and did not challenge his underlying conviction. The state has now certified that Jones was released from custody on December 7, 1987. Jones' record of parole violations does not constitute "collateral consequences" for the purposes of mootness analysis. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 632-34 & n. 13 (1982) (dismissing habeas appeal where respondents had been released from custody). Jones' habeas appeal is therefore moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The panel unanimously finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3