Thedois Brown v. S Ryan

Filing 115

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm: Based on the foregoing, petitioner is ordered to show cause, in writing and within fourteen (14) days of this Order, why his federal habeas peti tion should not be dismissed as moot. After reviewing petitioner's response, the Court will consider whether to order briefing from respondent. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/23/2017. (See attached order for further details.) (jsan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 05-762 PSG (FFM)

Title

THEDOIS BROWN v. S. RYAN, Warden

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 9, 2017

Frederick F. Mumm, United States Magistrate Judge

James Munoz

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None present

None present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT

On February 28, 2017, petitioner filed a status report advising the Court that the
Riverside County Superior Court (the “superior court”) had granted petitioner’s state
court petition on January 20, 2017. (Dkt. 114 at 2.) The status report also stated that the
superior court has set petitioner’s case for a jury trial setting. (Id. at 3.) Finally,
petitioner informed the Court that he intends to dismiss the petition pending before this
Court “once the state-court judgment becomes final.” (Id.)
Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts
to “live cases and controversies.” Kittel v. Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citations omitted); accord Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2012). An
actual case or controversy exists when, throughout the litigation, a petitioner continues to
have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit as a result of some actual injury that
is likely to be “redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S.
1, 7 (1998). Thus, where events that occur after the initiation of a case render a federal
court unable to provide the relief sought, the case must ordinarily be dismissed as moot.
Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996).
Here, petitioner’s state habeas petition was granted and the parties are ostensibly
proceeding under the assumption that he will be retried. This seemingly indicates that the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 05-762 PSG (FFM)

Date

Title

March 9, 2017

THEDOIS BROWN v. S. RYAN, Warden

original judgment of conviction for which he was imprisoned has been vacated. Because
the nature of habeas corpus is a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction, the Court
cannot grant petitioner any relief because the challenged judgment has been vacated. See
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (“[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas
corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on
the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” (emphasis added)). Other courts within this circuit have found that
where a petitioner’s state petition is granted, his federal petition attacking that same
judgment becomes moot. See, e.g., Stephens v. Yates, 2010 WL 5314955, at *2 (C.D.
Cal. Nov. 15, 2010) (“The Petition is moot and must be dismissed . . . . Petitioner
received relief on all of the claims in his Petition when the Superior Court granted
Petitioner’s state habeas petition and ordered a new trial.”). Accordingly, it appears that
the stay of this case should be lifted and that the petition should be dismissed as moot.
Furthermore, dismissal of the present petition as moot would not erect any new
barriers that petitioner may have to overcome in later federal habeas proceedings. Any
new judgment of conviction would restart the limitations period once that judgment
achieved finality. Thus, dismissal would not cause petitioner to run afoul of AEDPA’s
one-year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Based on the foregoing, petitioner is ordered to show cause, in writing and within
fourteen (14) days of this Order, why his federal habeas petition should not be dismissed
as moot. After reviewing petitioner’s response, the Court will consider whether to order
briefing from respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS for JM
Page 2 of 3