Hill v. Cain

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: October 13, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00154
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Lo .

□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

| DISTRICTOFOREGON

KEVIN JAMES HILL, , Case No. 2:21-cv-00154-CL Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL _

BRAD CAIN, Superintendent of SRCL, . Respondent.

CLARKE, Magistrate J udge. On J anuary 29, 2021, Petitioner Kevin James Hill (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2012 convictions for robbery, kidnapping, assault, and burglary (Multnomah County Circuit Court Case Number 11CR33373).

On March 31, 2021, the Court stayed these proceedings pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. (2021), (ECF No. 11), and have continued □□ the stay of proceedings since that decision pending resolution of Petitioner’s successive

_ postconviction proceedings in state court. (ECF Nos. 12-14.) : .

1 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL :

On June 12, 2023, the state péstconviction court vacated thirteen of Petitioner’s . convictions and remanded the entire case “for further proceedings, including, but not limited to, resentencing on all counts, or retrial.” (Mot. to Dismniss (ECF No. 38), Attach. 1.) On August 24, 2023, Respondent moved to dismiss this habeas action as moot. (Mot. at 1-2.) Petitioner does □□□ oppose the motion. (Resp. to Resp’t Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 39) at 1.) □ “Article IL of the Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of actual, ongoing □ controversies between litigants.” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988); see also . United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “[m]ootness is a jurisdictional issue” because “TtJhe inexorable command of the Constitution confines [federal courts] to deciding only actual cases and controversies”) (simplified). Generally, a case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer sive’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie y. Pap’s A.M., 529 US. 277, 287 (2000) (simplified). Because the criminal judgment Petitioner seeks to challenge no longer exists, this proceeding - □□ now is moot. See Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine F isheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that “[i]f an event occurs that prevents the court from granting ective relief, the claim is moot and must be dismissed”). Accordingly, the Court GRAN K respondent's unopposed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 38) and DISMISSES the petition as Oot. , -—-TTISs0 ORDERED. □□ DATED this 13 day of October, 2023.

MARK LL&L ARKE United States Magistrate Judge :

ORDER OF DISMISSAL