Navarro

MEMORANDUM *

Navarro appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s denial of this section 2241 habeas petition de novo. Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1111 , 121 S.Ct. 854 , 148 L.Ed.2d 769 (2001). We affirm.

Navarro first argues that the conditions of his confinement are or, more *514 properly, were unconstitutional. He challenges the conditions at the Yuba County jail where he was detained as well as his confinement in any county jail. We take judicial notice of the fact that he has been moved to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. The transfer makes both of his arguments moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir.1995). If Navarro wishes to challenge his conditions of confinement at Leavenworth, he may do so by filing another petition.

Navarro next argues that his detention is unconstitutional because it is effectively indefinite. His argument is that the Review Panel, in its decision not to parole him,…