Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00284/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00284-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eduardo Porras
Petitioner
James Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EDUARDO PORRAS,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES YATES, Warden

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-00284 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS 

[Doc. 18]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 28, 2005. By

order of April 14, 2005, the Court directed Respondent to submit a response to the petition. 

(Court Doc. 5.) Respondent filed an answer to the petition on July 11, 2005, and Petitioner filed

a traverse on August 8, 2005. (Court Docs. 10, 13.) Now pending before the Court is

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition based on mootness due to Petitioner’s death,

filed July 7, 2006. (Court Doc. 18.)

DISCUSSION

As Respondent points out, on June 19, 2006, an Order Reassigning a New District Judge

in the instant case that was mailed to “Eduardo Porras T-94724 [¶] Pleasant Valley State Prison

[¶] P.O. Box 8503 [¶] Coalinga, CA 93210-8503" was returned as undeliverable, stamped

“RETURN TO SENDER” with a handwritten notation “Death.” (Court Doc. 17; Exhibit A, at 1-

Case 1:05-cv-00284-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 08/29/06 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

2

3, attached to Respondent’s Motion.) Respondent submits a copy of Petitioner’s death certificate

indicating that he died on March 21, 2006. (Exhibit B, at 1-2, attached to Respondent’s Motion.) 

As Respondent recognizes, although the certificate spells Petitioner’s last name as Porraz

(Exhibit B, at 2), the probation officer’s report indicates his name has various aliases (Exhibit C,

at 1). As reflected on the certificate, Petitioner’s first name, middle name, date of birth,

birthplace, social security number, education, usual occupation, father’s name, and mother’s

place are all consistent with those listed in the probation report (Exhibit C, at 1, 4-5). As

Respondent submits, given these obvious consistencies, the certificate’s spelling of Petitioner’s

last name appears to be a mere variation of spelling or a typographical error. Read together,

Respondent’s exhibits A through C establish that Petitioner is deceased, and the instant petition

for writ of habeas corpus is moot. This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus

"in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground

that he 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 in which

the petition attacks at the time the petition is filed. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91

(1989); Allen v. State of Oregon, 153 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9 Cir. 1998). The death of Petitioner th

renders the instant petition moot. See Dove v. United States, 423 U.S. 325 (1976) (per curiam)

(dismissing certiorari petition because petitioner had died). Because Petitioner is now deceased,

he is no longer “in custody” and cannot challenge his conviction, and the petition is moot. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition be GRANTED; and

2. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Case 1:05-cv-00284-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 08/29/06 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

3

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 29, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00284-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 3