IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-31011
Summary Calendar
ROBERT KALTENBACH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
JOHN WHITLEY, WARDEN
versus
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(94-CV-2216)
March 7, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Kaltenbach petitioned for habeas corpus relief, see 28
U.S.C. s 2254, from his Louisiana state court convictions. At the
time of his petition, he was serving the sentence corresponding to
his conviction and thus met the “in custody” requirement for
federal habeas. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989).
Nevertheless, since that time, and before the district court ruled,
Louisiana released Kaltenbach from incarceration and terminated his
parole term. Louisiana has also restored all of Kaltenbach’s
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
rights of citizenship and franchise under its first offender
statute, La. Rev. Stat. 15:572.B-.D. Kaltenbach points to no
collateral consequences of the type discussed in Carafas v.
LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1986), currently attaching as a result
of his conviction. Accordingly, we agree with the district court
that Kaltenbach’s petition is moot; social stigma and the fact of
the previous conviction alone are insufficient to maintain a live
controversy for Article III purposes. Naylor v. Superior Court,
558 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 946 (1978);
Bjerkan v. United States, 529 F.2d 125, 126-27 (7th Cir. 1975).
Nor could Kaltenbach save his petition from mootness by, as he
suggests, adding a claim for damages; damages are not available in
an action under section 2254.
Although the district court’s opinion makes clear that
Kaltenbach’s petition was dismissed for mootness, it also recites
other possible grounds for the decision, its judgment states that
the petition was “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and all relief DENIED.”
Out of an abundance of caution, we modify the order to dismiss
Kaltenbach’s petition as moot.
Affirmed as modified.
2