Court Opinion

ID: 9387305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 17:00:40.303818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.751306
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
       FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO ARCIGA,                            No. 22-16974

             Petitioner-Appellee,           D.C. No.
                                         1:15-cv-01372-
 v.                                        DAD-CDB

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden
                                            ORDER
             Respondent-Appellant.

      Appeal from the United States District Court
         for the Eastern District of California
       Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

         Argued and Submitted March 7, 2023
                 Las Vegas, Nevada

                  Filed April 17, 2023

Before: Richard R. Clifton, Mark J. Bennett, and Roopali
               H. Desai, Circuit Judges.
2                     ARCIGA V. FRAUENHEIM

                          SUMMARY *

                         Habeas Corpus

   The panel dismissed as moot an appeal by Warden Scott
Frauenheim, and remanded with instructions that the district
court vacate its orders granting habeas relief and dismiss
Mario Arciga’s habeas corpus petition.
    The Warden conceded that this court could no longer
provide meaningful relief to Arciga after the state court’s
complete vacatur of his original conviction. Although the
Warden continued to contest mootness, he did so only on the
ground that the district court’s alleged legal error was
capable of repetition, yet evading review. The panel was not
persuaded by this argument as the purported error could be
presented on appeal following a district court's rejection of a
similar argument by another petitioner, or after a grant of
habeas relief by a district court that was stayed by the district
court or by this court, or after a grant of relief that was
challenged by the warden in that case with sufficient
promptness to permit this court's effective review before
release was required under the terms of the district court's
order, or under other circumstances.

*
 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
                  ARCIGA V. FRAUENHEIM                 3

                      COUNSEL

David A. Eldridge (argued) and Brian R. Means, Deputy
Attorneys General; Tami M. Krenzin, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General; Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Rob Bonta, Attorney General of
California; Office of the California Attorney General;
Sacramento, California; for Respondent-Appellant.

David M. Porter (argued) and Jerome Price Jr., Assistant
Federal Public Defenders; Heather E. Williams, Federal
Public Defender; Federal Public Defender’s Office;
Sacramento, California; for Petitioner-Appellee.
4                      ARCIGA V. FRAUENHEIM

                              ORDER

    This appeal is dismissed with prejudice as moot.
Appellant Warden has conceded, in his March 15, 2023
letter to the court (Docket No. 30), that this court could no
longer provide meaningful relief to Arciga after the state
court’s complete vacatur of his original conviction.
Although the Warden continued to contest mootness, he did
so only on the ground that the district court’s alleged legal
error was capable of repetition, yet evading review. We are
not persuaded by this argument as the purported error could
be presented on appeal following a district court’s rejection
of a similar argument by another petitioner, or after a grant
of habeas relief by a district court that was stayed by the
district court or by this court, or after a grant of relief that
was challenged by the warden in that case with sufficient
promptness to permit this court’s effective review before
release was required under the terms of the district court’s
order, or under other circumstances. Cf. Cox v. McCarthy,
829 F.2d 800, 803–05 (9th Cir. 1987) (determining that the
petitioners’ habeas challenge to the constitutionality of a
state statute did not meet the capable-of-repetition exception,
despite the likelihood that no similarly situated claimant
could ever satisfy the exception, “[b]ecause other inmates
subject to [the challenged statute] may bring a class habeas
action to resolve the ex post facto claim[.]”).
    Because the case became moot during the pendency of
the appeal, we conclude that the district court’s orders
granting habeas relief should be vacated. 1 We remand the
matter to the district court with instructions to dismiss

1
 This vacatur should not be read as expressing an opinion on the merits
of the district court’s orders.
                   ARCIGA V. FRAUENHEIM                  5

Arciga’s petition. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
340 U.S. 36, 39–40 (1950).
   Each party to bear its own costs.
    APPEAL       DISMISSED;         REMANDED         with
instructions to vacate and dismiss.