Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01451/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01451-4/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 

16cv1451 GPC (NLS) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENT KEIGWIN, 

Petitioner,

v. 

J. LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16cv1451 GPC (NLS) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Dkt. No. 14] 

 Petitioner Kent Keigwin, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his 

Petition for Habeas Corpus and motion for stay and abeyance on June 10, 2016. The 

court ultimately found that the motion to stay was moot and ordered Respondent to file a 

response to the Petition. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss and reported that Mr. 

Keigwin died on August 8, 2016. See Motion to Dismiss, Ex. A, Keigwin Death 

Certificate. The court also notes that all court orders sent to Mr. Keigwin after August 8 

have been returned to the court as “undeliverable.” See Dkt. Nos. 11, 15, 16. 

 Where a habeas petitioner dies while the petition is pending, the petition must be 

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

Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). Respondent provided proof that Mr. Keigwin 

died on August 8, 2016. Therefore, this court RECOMMENDS that the motion to 

dismiss be GRANTED and his petition be DISMISSED as moot. 

Case 3:16-cv-01451-GPC-NLS Document 17 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

16cv1451 GPC (NLS) 

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

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted 

to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). IT IS ORDERED that no later than November 7, 2016, any party to this 

action may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The 

document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections must be filed with 

the court and served on all parties no later than November 14, 2016. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 24, 2016 

Case 3:16-cv-01451-GPC-NLS Document 17 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 2