Peter Parra v. W.J. Sullivan

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01724
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 JS-6 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 PETER PARRA, Case No. LACV 18-1724-JLS (LAL) 11 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 v. HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT 13 W.J. SULLIVAN, 14 Respondent. 15 16 I. 17 PROCEEDINGS 18 On March 1, 2018, Peter Parra (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On May 20 3, 2019, Respondent filed an Answer. (Dkt. No. 21.) Petitioner did not file a Reply. 21 On October 17, 2019, this action was transferred to the currently assigned magistrate 22 judge. (Dkt. No. 26.) A copy of the transfer order was served on Petitioner via mail at his 23 address of record. On October 28, 2019, Petitioner’s mail was returned to the Court with a 24 notation that Petitioner was “Inactive.” (Dkt. No. 27 at 4.) 25 On March 27, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation and 26 served a copy on Petitioner via mail at his address of record. (Dkt. No. 29.) Petitioner did not 27 file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. On April 11, 2020, Petitioner’s mail again 1 | No. 31 at3.) 2 On May 5, 2020, the magistrate judge ordered Respondent to update the Court on 3 | Petitioner’s status. (Dkt. No. 32.) On May 6, 2020, Respondent filed a response to the Court’s 4 | order informing the Court Petitioner is deceased. (Dkt. No. 33.) 5 Il. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Mootness is a constitutionally imposed limit on the jurisdiction of the federal court. U.S. 8 | Const. Art. III, § 2. For a federal court to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be an actual 9 | case or controversy at the time the case is decided. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401, 10 | 95S. Ct. 2330, 45 L. Ed. 2d 272 (1975) (“The rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy 11 | must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’”’). “If there is 12 | no longer a possibility that a[] [litigant] can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot and 13 | must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” See Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 14 | 514, 521 (9th Cir. 1999). Dismissal of a habeas corpus petition as moot is proper due to the 15 | death of a petitioner. Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005); Griffey v. Lindsey, 16 | 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 Here, because Petitioner has died, he cannot obtain the relief sought by the current 18 | Petition, and no case or controversy currently exists. Thus, the Petition is moot and must be 19 | dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 20 Ii. 21 ORDER 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation issued on 23 | March 27, 2020 is hereby withdrawn; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action 24 | for lack of jurisdiction. 25 DATED: July 1, 2020 HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON 7 United States District Judge 28