Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00639/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00639-0/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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Roberto Carrasco Gamez, Jr., 

 Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

 Respondents. 

 CV 12-0639-TUC-JGZ (JR) 

 REPORT AND 

 RECOMMENDATION 

 

 Petitioner Roberto Carrasco Gamez, Jr., filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending before the Court are Gamez’s 

Motion for Stay and Abeyance (Doc. 18) and Motion to Expedite Ruling on Stay and 

Abeyance (Doc. 34). Because the motions are moot, the Magistrate Judge 

recommends that they be denied. 

I. Discussion 

 A federal court may not decide a moot question. Thus, when a court cannot 

provide any effectual relief in favor of the petitioner due to intervening events, the 

Case 4:12-cv-00639-RM Document 39 Filed 02/06/14 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

request for relief should be dismissed as moot. Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 

150 (1996). 

 Petitioner appears to have succeeded in exhausting his state court remedies as 

to all the claims he seeks to raise. On December 3, 2013, Gamez notified the Court 

that the Arizona Court of Appeals had ruled on his previously unexhausted claims 

(Doc. 37). Thus, there is no longer any basis for a stay request and Gamez's request 

for a stay is moot. For the same reasons, Gamez’s request for an expedited ruling on 

his stay request is also moot. 

II. RECOMMENDATION

 Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the 

District Court, after its independent review, deny as moot Gamez’s Motion for Stay 

and Abeyance (Doc. 18) and Motion to Expedite Ruling on Stay and Abeyance (Doc. 

34). 

 The Magistrate Judge also recommends that the District Court, should it find 

Gamez’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance Moot, order Respondents to answer the 

petition.1

 This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), 

 

1 The Court recognizes that Respondents’ Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and 

Abeyance (Doc. 29) addresses many of Gamez’s claims. However, it is not denominated an 

Answer and does not address the effect, if any, Gamez’s recently completed State court 

appeal will have in this case. 

Case 4:12-cv-00639-RM Document 39 Filed 02/06/14 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District 

Court’s judgment. 

 However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of 

a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with 

the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Replies are not permitted without 

leave of court. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case 

number: CV 12-0639-TUC-JGZ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or 

legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s 

right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003)(en banc). 

 Dated this 6th day of February, 2014. 

 

Case 4:12-cv-00639-RM Document 39 Filed 02/06/14 Page 3 of 3