Tai Truong v. Martin Hoshino, 423 F. App'x 686 (9th Cir. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Tai Truong v. Martin Hoshino, 423 F. App'x 686 (9th Cir. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tai TRUONG, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Martin HOSHINO, Respondent-Appellee
10-15117.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 21, 2011.
423 F. App'x 686
Tai Truong, Avenal, CA, pro se., David Carrasco, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Farris, O'Scannlain, Bybee.
Unpublished

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tai Truong appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with his 2008 parole hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Truong’s action on the basis of mootness because, in light of an amendment to the relevant law before his November 26, 2008 hearing, “there [wa]s no longer a possibility that [he could] obtain relief for his claim.” Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Cal.Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(3) (effective November 5, 2008).

Truong’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.