Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_92-cv-02076/USCOURTS-azd-2_92-cv-02076-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Edward Beaty, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-92-2076-PHX-SRB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

This is a terminated habeas action. This Court denied relief, the Ninth Circuit affirmed,

the Supreme Court denied certiorari and the mandate has issued. (See Dkts. 333, 336); Beaty

v. Ryan, 130 S. Ct. 364 (2009). Pending before the Court, the parties have jointly requested

that this Court issue an Order authorizing a confidential contact visit between Petitioner and

a neuropsychologist, in support of Petitioner’s upcoming clemency application. (Dkt. 343.)

A federal court’s jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies. See U.S. Const. art.

III, § 2; Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 n.7 (1969). A claim is moot when it loses

its character as a present live controversy; a federal court does not have jurisdiction to issue

an order upon a moot claim. See Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969); American Rivers v.

National Marine Fisheries, 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997). Because mootness is

jurisdictional, federal courts must consider the question independent of the parties’

arguments. See Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235, 1237 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996); see also

Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that

parties cannot stipulate to subject matter jurisdiction where none exists).

Case 2:92-cv-02076-SRB Document 346 Filed 06/23/10 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

1 The Court believes that Petitioner will not be prejudiced by this Order as he

may seek relief in state court where he is litigating a successive post-conviction relief petition

related to Arizona’s lethal injection protocol. See State v. Beaty, Maricopa County Superior

Court, No. CR-0140790. 

- 2 -

A district court acting under an appellate court’s mandate is to obey the terms of the

mandate and carry it into effect. See Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 281 U.S.

1, 11 (1930) (“The mandate required the execution of the decree. The District Court could

not vary it or give any further relief.”); Caldwell v. Puget Sound Elec. Apprenticeship and

Training Trust, 824 F.2d 765, 767 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court cannot give relief beyond

the scope of the mandate). Other than execution of the mandate, this Court has no further

subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Id. 

The parties request that the Court enter an Order authorizing a confidential contact visit

to take place between Petitioner and his mental health expert. This request is denied because

it is beyond the scope of executing the mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals.1

 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying stipulation for order allowing confidential

contact visit with Petitioner. (Dkt. 343.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court update the title of this case

to reflect the substitution of Charles L. Ryan as the Director of the Department of

Corrections.

DATED this 23rd day of June, 2010.

Case 2:92-cv-02076-SRB Document 346 Filed 06/23/10 Page 2 of 2