The following excerpt is from Cleary v. Henry, 70 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1995):
A district court's decision to grant or deny a conditional writ of habeas corpus is reviewed de novo. McKinney v. Rees, 993 F.2d 1378, 1380 n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 662 (1993).
Appellant contends his parole revocation hearing was not held within the time limits set by the district court's order granting a conditional writ of habeas corpus. To be entitled to habeas corpus relief, appellant must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the delay in conducting his parole revocation hearing. Poyner v. United States Parole Comm'n, 878 F.2d 275, 277 (9th Cir.1989).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.