Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02191/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02191-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Brown
Petitioner
James D. Hartley
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-2191 KJM CKD P

vs.

JAMES D. HARTLEY,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner in this action sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. The petition was fully briefed and respondent had recently lodged supplemental records

pursuant to court order. On December 4, 2012, respondent filed a Notice of Death of Petitioner

stating that petitioner died on July 4, 2012. (Dkt. No. 23.)

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art.

III, § 2. An action becomes moot when the issues “are no longer ‘live,’” i.e., when the “parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496

(1969). In a habeas proceeding, “the claims [are] extinguished upon [a] petitioner's death and no

party can be substituted for him.” Pennewell v. Carey, 2008 WL 1860166, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr.

23, 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)). “Because petitioner's death renders this case moot, the

petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as moot.” Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d

1

Case 2:10-cv-02191-KJM-CKD Document 24 Filed 01/02/13 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

1101 (9th Cir. 2005). See also Dove v. United States, 423 U.S. 325 (1976) (dismissing a

certiorari petition because petitioner had died); Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003)

(dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot because petitioner had died).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as

having been rendered moot by petitioner's death.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. 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). 

Dated: January 2, 2013

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

brow2191.moot

2

Case 2:10-cv-02191-KJM-CKD Document 24 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2