Opinion
02 Civ. 8710 (BSJ)
October 7, 2003
Opinion
Having been advised that Petitioner was discharged from parole supervision on July 1, 2003, this Court hereby dismisses those claims in his habeas petition relating to the delay in his parole hearing and the subsequent denial of his parole as moot. Because Petitioner is no longer subject to parole, any alleged violation of his rights during his parole proceedings does not present a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution. See generally Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998). Petitioner's argument that the dismissal of his parole proceeding violation claims would unfairly prejudice a § 1983 action, thus constituting a continuing "collateral consequence," is unpersuasive. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 17;Huang v. Johnson, 251 F.3d 65, 75 (2d Cir. 2001). Of course, Petitioner's remaining claims, which attack his underlying state court conviction, remain under consideration by Magistrate Judge Freemen.
Petitioner's motion for immediate release from parole or, in the alternative, release on bail pending the Court's disposition of his habeas petition, which was the subject of Magistrate Judge Freeman's April 30, 2003 Report and Recommendation, is moot.
SO ORDERED.