Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02495/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02495-7/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

MYKEL HAWKINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2495 MCE JFM P

vs.

C.K. PLILER, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner was a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 4, 2007, counsel for petitioner

filed a notice of petitioner’s death on December 3, 2007. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(1). This court may

entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus” in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution

or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A petitioner must be “in custody”

under the conviction or sentence in which the petition attacks at the time the petition is filed.

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989); Allen v. State of Oregon, 153 F.3d 1046, 1048

(9th Cir. 1998). The death of petitioner renders the instant petition moot. See Dove v. United

States, 423 U.S. 325 (1976) (per curiam) (dismissing certiorari petition because petitioner had

died). Because petitioner is now deceased, he is no longer “in custody” and cannot challenge his

conviction, and the petition is moot.

Case 2:04-cv-02495-MCE -JFM Document 30 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 

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 ten days

after service of these findings and recommendations, any written objections may be filed with the

court. The 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 13, 2007.

/001; hawk2495.dea

Case 2:04-cv-02495-MCE -JFM Document 30 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2