Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00267/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00267-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHALED MOHAMED,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 15cv267-GPC(KSC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AS MOOT

v.

HEIDI M. LACKNER, Warden,

Respondent.

On August 18, 2017, Petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that Petitioner had

passed away. (Dkt. No. 41.) The Court set an order to show cause why the petition

should not be dismissed as moot based on the recent death of Petitioner. (Dkt. No. 41.) 

Petitioner’s counsel filed a response on September 12, 2017. (Dkt. No. 44.) On

September 30, 2017, counsel for Petitioner filed another statusreport and an additional

response to order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 51.) Respondent filed a response on

October 6, 2017. (Dkt. No. 49.) Petitioner’s counsel did not file a reply. 

Background

On February 29, 2015, Petitioner Khaled Mohamed (“Petitioner” or

“Mohamed”), proceeding with counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

challenging his state court conviction. (Dkt. No. 1.) An answer and traverse were

filed. (Dkt. No. 11, 16.) The Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation

that the petition be denied and dismissed. (Dkt. No. 20.) Petitioner filed an objection

- 1 - [15cv267-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-00267-GPC-KSC Document 52 Filed 10/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

to the report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 25.) On July 21, 2017, the Court granted

Petitioner’s motion to expand the record. (Dkt. No. 30.) While waiting for the records

to be submitted byRespondent, Petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that Mohamed

recently passed away in Mexico. (Dkt. No. 41.)

Petitioner’s counsel declared that Petitioner’s sister was making preparations to

view the body in Tijuana to confirm the identity, if possible, of the decedent. (Dkt. No.

43.) One family member flew from Egypt and identified the body as her brother

Mohamed and because it had not been cared for properly and was not in a condition to

be brought back to Egypt, a burial took place in Tijuana. (Dkt. No. 44.) Petitioner’s

counsel indicates he wishes to continue to represent Mohamed in the case and

Mohamed’s mother wants her son’s name cleared. (Id.) 

On September 30, 2017, in another statusreport and additionalresponse to order

to show cause, Petitioner’s counsel reports that “it is only speculation that Khaled

Mohamed is actually deceased.” (Dkt. No. 46, Khoury Decl. ¶ 6.) Counsel asks that

the Court not dismiss the case in the event that Mohamed is not deceased. (Id. ¶ 8.)

In response, Respondent indicated that the District Attorney’s office conducted

an investigation into Mohamed’s death, and a death certificate was discovered. (Dkt.

No. 49, Borzachillo Decl. ¶ 6; id. at 7, 9

1

.) The death certificate names Khaled Ezz

Eldin Abdelhalim Mohamed as the decedent with the date of death on July 28, 2017. 

(Id. at 9.) 

Discussion

Federal courts have habeas corpusjurisdiction over someone who is “in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see Bailey v. Hill,

599 F.3d 976, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2010). The “in custody” requirement has been

interpreted to mean that federal courts lack jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions

unless the petitioner is “under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his

petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989).

1Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 

- 2 - [15cv267-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-00267-GPC-KSC Document 52 Filed 10/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

The death of a petitioner renders the case moot and “the petition for writ of

habeas corpus should be dismissed as moot.” Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101,

1101 (9th Cir. 2005); Mc Mann v. Ross, 396 U.S. 118, 118 (1969) (remanding the case

to the district court with direction to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus as

moot due to the death of the respondent/petitioner); Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157,

1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (vacating its opinion and remanding to the district court to dismiss

the petition as moot after being notified of the death of the petitioner). Petitioner’s

counsel concedes that the habeas petition should be dismissed as moot as Petitioner’s

counsel informed Mohamed’s family that his “research revealed that the Court cannot

grant relief to a deceased person in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (Dkt. No. 44, Khoury

Decl. ¶ 6.) 

Petitioner’s counsel initially represented that Mohamed had passed away but

retracted hisstatement by claiming the death of Mohamed is only based on speculation. 

However, given acceptance of the body of the decedent as that of Mohamed, and the

time, effort and money to bury the body, it is not “only speculation” to believe

Petitioner is deceased. Moreover, the death certificate confirms his death, and

Petitioner has not filed a reply to Respondent’s arguments and submission of the death

certificate. 

Due to Petitioner’s death, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, and the

Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of Court shall be

directed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 31, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [15cv267-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:15-cv-00267-GPC-KSC Document 52 Filed 10/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3