Christopher Dollar v. Gregory Smith ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER ADAM DOLLAR, No. 19-16753
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:13-cv-01952-JCM-GWF
v.
GREGORY SMITH; ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM*
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Adam Dollar appeals from the district court’s judgment denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether Dollar’s counsel was
ineffective for failing to discover and present at sentencing mitigating evidence of
Dollar’s intellectual disabilities. Appellees contend, and Dollar concedes, that
Dollar’s appeal is moot because he has completed both his carceral term and his
parole term. “Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and federal courts have no
jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy
exists.” Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Because Dollar does not challenge his underlying conviction, has
served his custodial term and his parole term in full, and has not shown any other
collateral consequence from his sentence, his appeal is moot. See Spencer v.
Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14-18 (1998) (holding that petitioner’s attack on parole
revocation proceeding was moot after his release from custody and completion of
parole); Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982) (“Since respondents elected
only to attack their sentences, and since those sentences expired during the course
of these proceedings, this case is moot.”).
DISMISSED.
2 19-16753