Charles Carl v. Robert Horel
Charles Carl v. Robert Horel
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
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 1 , and we affirm.
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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.