Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00557/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00557-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Charles Ray Stedman, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, et. al., 

Respondents.

No. cv-10-557-TUC-AWT (CRP)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Petitioner Charles Ray Stedman (“Petitioner”) filed an Amended Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2242, 2251, 2254 filed on October 27, 

2010. (Doc. 8). Respondents filed an Answer to the Amended Petition on April 7, 2011. 

(Doc. 15). Petitioner subsequently filed a Reply. (Doc. 16). On February 13, 2012, 

Petitioner’s counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Petition as Moot stating his 

belief that Petitioner passed away in August 2012. (Doc. 18). The Court subsequently 

ordered Respondents to determine whether Petitioner was still in custody. (Doc. 19). On 

April 3, 2013, Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner did pass away in August 

2012 and was therefore, no longer in custody. (Doc. 20; Doc. 20-1). 

 In his Amended Habeas Petition, Petitioner was seeking release from custody.1

Because there is no relief the court can grant Petitioner given his untimely death, his 

habeas petition is rendered moot. See Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101 (9th 

 

1

 Petitioner was released on his own recognizance subject to certain mandatory conditions pending trial in his criminal case in state court. A defendant who is released on 

bail or on his own recognizance is “in custody” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) and § 2254(a). Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973). 

Case 4:10-cv-00557-AWT Document 21 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Cir.2005) (habeas petitioner's death resulted in dismissal of case as moot); Griffey v. 

Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2003) (habeas petition dismissed as moot where 

petitioner died during pendency of appeal). The Magistrate Judge will therefore 

recommend that the Amended Petition be dismissed with prejudice. 

Recommendation

 The Magistrate Judge recommends GRANTING the Motion to Dismiss Case 

(Doc. 18), DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 8), and DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner’s counsel’s Motion to 

Withdraw and Attorney. (Doc. 17). 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections 

within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. If 

objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that 

any objections filed are to be identified with the following case number: cv-10-557-TUCAWT. 

 Dated this 4th day of April, 2013. 

Case 4:10-cv-00557-AWT Document 21 Filed 04/04/13 Page 2 of 2