FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAI TRUONG, No. 10-15117
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02831-MCE-
DAD
v.
MARTIN HOSHINO, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
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).
§ 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.
2 10-15117