Timothy Wilson Scott v. California Orange County Superior Court

Filing 36

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips 1 , 35 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. Case Terminated. [See Order for details.] Made JS-6. (san)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

TIMOTHY WILSON SCOTT,
Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.
CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT,

16

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. SACV 13-1957-VAP (JEM)
SUMMARY DISMISSAL ORDER

17
18

RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS

19

On December 17, 2013, Timothy Wilson Scott (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

20

proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

21

(“Petition”), in which he challenged the validity of his conviction and/or sentence in Orange

22

County Superior Court case number 97WF1282. (Petition at 1-2.)

23
24
25
26
27
28

On April 10, 2017, Respondent filed a Notice of Petitioner’s Death, notifying the Court
that Petitioner died on September 12, 2016, and attaching a copy of the death certificate.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Petition should be dismissed
with prejudice as moot.
DISCUSSION

1

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution establishes the scope of federal

2

court jurisdiction, which includes “all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution . . . [and]

3

Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.” An actual controversy must exist

4

between the parties throughout all stages of the proceeding. See Alvarez v. Smith, 558

5

U.S. 87, 92 (2009); see also Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975). An action

6

becomes moot when the issues “are no longer ‘live,’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable

7

interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). “Mootness is

8

jurisdictional.” Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

9

In these habeas proceedings, the relief sought, i.e., Petitioner's immediate release

10

from custody, is unique to the Petitioner himself and cannot be transferred. “In other words,

11

the claims [are] extinguished upon [a] petitioner's death and no party can be substituted for

12

him.” Pennewell v. Carey, No. 2:06–cv0598 JKS EFB, 2008 WL 1860166, at *1 (E.D. Cal.

13

Apr. 23, 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)). “Because petitioner's death renders this case

14

moot, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as moot.” Garceau v.

15

Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th

16

Cir. 2003) (dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot because petitioner had

17

died).

18
19

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

20
21
22
23

DATED: April 24, 2017
VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2