Winters-El
Winters-El v. U.S. Parole Commissioner
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
David Winters-El appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a •writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2253. We disagree with the district court’s finding that the claims in the petition are moot, but deny the claims on the merits and therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of the petition. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 965 (9th Cir.2004) (“We may affirm the district court’s decision on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from the district court’s rationale.”).
The district court had jurisdiction over this petition because “[jjurisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.” Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999 , 1005 n. 3 (9th Cir.2005); see also Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 304-05 , 65 S.Ct. 208 , 89 L.Ed. 243 (1944).
Winters-El’s special parole conditions claim is not moot because the challenged action is capable of repetition, yet evading review. See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 871-72 (9th Cir.2002). Specifically, the challenged action will always…