Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Charles Brown v. James D. Hartley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 2, 2013

CHARLES BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner in this action sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was fully briefed and respondent had recently lodged supplemental records pursuant to court order. On December 4, 2012, respondent filed a Notice of Death of Petitioner stating that petitioner died on July 4, 2012. (Dkt. No. 23.)

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. An action becomes moot when the issues "are no longer 'live,'" i.e., when the "parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). In a habeas proceeding, "the claims [are] extinguished upon [a] petitioner's death and no party can be substituted for him." Pennewell v. Carey, 2008 WL 1860166, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)). "Because petitioner's death renders this case moot, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as moot." Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005). See also Dove v. United States, 423 U.S. 325 (1976) (dismissing a certiorari petition because petitioner had died); Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot because petitioner had died).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as having been rendered moot by petitioner's death.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20130102

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.