2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-30-2013 

# W i l li a m K eit el v . J o seph M a z ur k

iew ic z

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 12-4027

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" W i l l i a m Keit e l v

. J os e p h M a z urk ie w icz " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 273. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/273

### PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________
No. 12

- 4027

_____________ WILLIAM A. KEITEL,

Appellant

v.

JOSEPH MAZURKIEWICZ; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

PENNSYLVANIA

_____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (No. 2

- 11

- c v

- 0 1209 ) District Judge: Hon. Nora B. Fischer

Before: CHAGARES
, VANASKIE , and SHWARTZ
, Circuit Judges

. (Filed: August 30, 2013 )

________ ____
OPINION

____________

### 2 Chris R. Eyster, Esq. 100 Ross Street Suite 304 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

- 2013 Attorney for Appellant

Ronald M. Wabby, Jr., Esq. Office of the District Attorney 401 Allegheny County Courthouse Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorney for Appe llees

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge

. Appellant William Keitel was convicted in late 1998 by a jury in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of first degree murder, third degree murder, aggravated assault, and five counts of recklessly endangering another person

. Keitel’s aggregate sentence was life imprisonment plus thirty

five to seventy years of imprisonment. Keitel unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentence. His efforts to seek relief under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act were similarly unsuccessful.

Keitel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in September 2011. The District Court denied the petition and Keitel timely appe aled. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253.

The case has been fully briefed by the parties and is listed to be heard by the Court on September 26, 2013.

### 3 However, the parties notified the Court that Keitel died on August 11, 2013. The a ppellee s now contend that Keitel’s case is moot and should be dismissed. In response, Keitel’s attorney of record has advised the Court that Keitel’s parents, his “next of kin,” desire “to continue the appeal to clear their son’s name.”

Article I II of the Constitution limits the federal courts to adjudication of actual, ongoing “[c]ases” and “[c]ontroversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The “ case

or

- controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Lewis v. Cont ’ l Bank Corp. , 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). “Courts enforce the case

- or

- controversy requirement through several justiciability doctrines

, ” which “include standing, ripeness, mootness, the political

- question doctrine, and the pr ohibition on advisory opinions.” Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington , 555 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir. 2009). As we have observed, “[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a sui t or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996). We consider whether Keitel’s death renders this appeal moot.

Section 2254 e mpowers a federal court to grant a petitioner relief from unlawful state custody. See Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (noting that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”); Barry v. Brower , 864 F.2d 294, 296 (3d Cir.

### 4 198 8) (holding that “a district court’s power to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is limited . . . to direct ing [the petitioner’s] release from custody.”). Because Keitel has died, he is no longer “in custody.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Accordingly, we conclude that Keitel’s habeas petition has been rendered moot by his death. We note that our decision today is in accord with that of every other Court of Appeals to have considered this issue. See, e.g.
, Bruno v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr. , 700 F.3d 445, 445 (11 th Cir. 2012) (“The death of the habeas petitioner renders a habeas action moot.”); Garceau v. Woodf ord , 399 F.3d 1101, 1101 (9 th Cir. 2005); McMillin v. Bowersox , 102 F.3d 987, 987 (8 th Cir. 1996); McClendon v. Trigg , 79 F.3d 557, 559 (7 th Cir. 1996); Knapp v. Baker , 509 F.2d 922, 922 (5 th Cir. 1975). See also Lockhart v. McCree , 476 U.S. 162, 168 n.2 (1986) (“[T]he habeas petitioner . . . died prior to the District Court’s decision, so his case became moot.”); In re Kravitz , 504 F.Supp. 43, 49

- 50 (M.D. Pa. 1980).

For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s order denying the petitio n and remand this case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the petition as
moot.