Case Name: Mark A. KOCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles L. RYAN, Defendant-Appellant; Mark A. Koch, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles L. Ryan; George Herman; Denny Harkins, Defendants-Appellants. and Samuel A. Lewis, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-11
Citations: 335 F.3d 993
Docket Number: Nos. 01-16891, 02-15061
Parties: Mark A. KOCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles L. RYAN, Defendant-Appellant. Mark A. Koch, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles L. Ryan; George Herman; Denny Harkins, Defendants-Appellants. and Samuel A. Lewis, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 335
Pages: 993–993

Head Matter:
Mark A. KOCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles L. RYAN, Defendant-Appellant. Mark A. Koch, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles L. Ryan; George Herman; Denny Harkins, Defendants-Appellants. and Samuel A. Lewis, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendant.
Nos. 01-16891, 02-15061.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.
Filed July 11, 2003.
Michael T. O’Toole, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, AR, for the appellants.
Timothy J. Eckstein, Osborn Maledon, Phoenix, Arizona (argued); Daniel J. Po-choda, Phoenix, AR (briefed), for the ap-pellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Charles L. Ryan, is substituted for his predecessor, as Acting Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Petitioner's release from prison by the State of Arizona has rendered the consolidated appeals in this matter moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Appellant Charles L. Ryan is GRANTED.
This appeal is DISMISSED and the cases of Koch v. Lewis, 216 F.Supp.2d 994 (D.Ariz.2001) and Koch v. Lewis, 2001 WL 1944737 (D.Ariz. December 17, 2001) are REMANDED to the district court to determine whether its rulings should be vacated. See Dilley, 64 F.3d at 1372-73.
A certified copy of this order sent to the district court shall constitute the mandate.
DISMISSED and REMANDED.