Iiams v. Dunn et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 1/5/2017. (KEK)
2017 Jan-05 PM 04:41
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, Commissioner of )
the Alabama Department of Corrections,
This is a habeas corpus case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The
action was filed, through counsel, by petitioner Nicholas Iiams, an Alabama state
prisoner. (Doc. 1). The cause now comes to be heard on Mr. Iiams’s motion to
dismiss the action as moot. (Doc. 8). The court concludes that the motion should
In 1995, Mr. Iiams was convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County,
Alabama, for a capital murder he committed when he was 15 years old. The trial
court imposed the then-mandatory minimum sentence under state law: life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Relying upon the Supreme
Court’s decisions in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Miller v. Alabama,
132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012); and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), Mr.
Iiams filed this habeas action seeking relief in the form of a new sentencing
hearing at which the state court might consider whether a sentence of life
imprisonment with the possibility of parole is more appropriate.
Since then, on December 20, 2016, the state circuit court issued an order
granting relief from Mr. Iiams’s mandatory life-without-parole sentence and set
the case for further resentencing. (Doc. 8 at 2). Because such was the relief that
Mr. Iiams sought in this habeas action, he states that the case is moot. (Id.) The
court agrees. “[A] case must be dismissed as moot if the court can no longer
provide ‘meaningful relief.’” Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 906, 913 (11th Cir.
2003). Accordingly, this matter should be dismissed as moot. The court will enter
a separate final order.
DONE this 5th day of January, 2017.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?