Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00598/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00598-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD PENNEWELL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0598 RRB EFB P

vs.

THOMAS CAREY, Warden, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Respondent.

 /

On March 22, 2006, petitioner filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and a petition challenging a decision finding that he was not suitable for parole. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. On April 11, 2006, the court granted petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

served the petition on respondent, and directed the respondent to file and serve a response. On

May 10, 2006, respondent moved to dismiss this action on the ground that petitioner failed to

exhaust the available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). On June 20, 2006, petitioner

opposed the motion, but in the alternative requested that this action be stayed and held in

abeyance while he presented his claims to the state courts. The court found that petitioner had

exhausted the available state remedies, denied the motion and ordered the respondent to file and

serve an answer to the petition. Thus, on February 28, 2007, respondent filed an answer. On

May 1, 2007, petitioner filed a reply. On August 2, 2007, petitioner notified the court that he

Case 2:06-cv-00598-JKS-EFB Document 41 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 See McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing relief

available on habeas challenge to the recision of a parole date).

2

suffered from a terminal illness. On January 28, 2008, respondent notified the court that the

petitioner died of cancer on November 19, 2007. Based on petitioner’s death, respondent seeks

an order dismissing this case on the ground that it is moot.

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. 

The issues must remain live throughout all stages of the proceeding. Lewis v. Continental Bank

Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990). 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). It is the nature of these proceedings that the relief

sought, i.e., immediate release from custody or a new parole suitability hearing,1 is unique to the

petitioner himself and cannot be transferred. In other words, the claims were extinguished upon

petitioner’s death and no party can be substituted for him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a). Therefore,

“petitioner’s death renders this case moot” and “the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should

be dismissed.” Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101, 1101 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The court notes that three motions remain outstanding in this action. These are

petitioner’s March 28, 2007, motion for leave to conduct discovery and August 2, 2007, motion

for appointment of counsel, and respondent’s May 31, 2007, motion to strike. These motions

must be denied as moot.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s March 28, 2007, motion for leave to conduct discovery is denied;

2. Respondent’s May 31, 2007, motion to strike is denied; and

3. Petitioner’s August 2, 2007, motion for appointment of counsel is denied

////

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-00598-JKS-EFB Document 41 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed on the ground that it is

moot.

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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 28, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00598-JKS-EFB Document 41 Filed 02/28/08 Page 3 of 3