Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00536/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00536-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEIL DARROW, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

SCRIBNER, Warden, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-cv-00536-OWW-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Doc. 32)

ORDER TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN TEN

DAYS

Petitioner was a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 20, 2007, the Court ordered Respondent to file a

response. (Doc. 29). On December 5, 2007, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss,

contending that the petition was moot due to the death of Petitioner. (Doc. 32).

DISCUSSION

In conjunction with the motion to dismiss, Respondent includes a copy of the Kings

County death certificate for Petitioner, indicating that Petitioner died on May 11, 2006. (Doc. 32,

Exh. 1). The death of Petitioner moots the action. The Court may entertain a petition for writ of

habeas corpus on behalf of a petitioner who is in state custody on the ground that the petitioner 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 the petition

attacks when the petitioner files a federal habeas corpus petition. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,

490-491, 109 S. Ct. 1923 (1989); Allen v. State of Oregon, 153 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 1:06-cv-00536-OWW -TAG Document 33 Filed 02/14/08 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

27

28

2

Because he is deceased, Petitioner is no longer “in custody” for purposes of challenging his

conviction, and thus, there is no relief which this Court can afford Petitioner. Hence, the petition

should be dismissed as moot. Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005); Griffey v.

Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss

the petition as moot (Doc. 32), be GRANTED, and that the petition (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED as

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)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, 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.” The

District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

order of the District Judge. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00536-OWW -TAG Document 33 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2