Arciga v. Frauenheim
Filing
79
ORDER VACATING the Court's November 21, 2022 Order Granting Habeas Relief and Dismissing Habeas Petition, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/18/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARIO ARCIGA,
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
No. 1:15-cv-01372-DAD-CDB (HC)
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,
Respondent.
15
ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S
NOVEMBER 21, 2022 ORDER GRANTING
HABEAS RELIEF AND DISMISSING
HABEAS PETITION
16
17
This matter is before the court on remand from the Ninth Circuit. On April 17, 2023, the
18
Ninth Circuit issued an order dismissing respondent’s appeal of this court’s November 21, 2022
19
order granting petitioner Mario Arciga’s petition for federal habeas relief (Doc. No. 68) and
20
remanding this case to this court with instructions to vacate the November 21, 2022 order and
21
dismiss Arciga’s petition. (Doc. No. 78.) Specifically, the Ninth Circuit explained that “[t]his
22
vacatur should not be read as expressing an opinion on the merits of the district court’s orders,”
23
but rather, this case simply became moot during the pendency of the appeal because the state
24
court vacated petitioner’s original conviction.1 (Id. at 4–5.)
25
/////
26
27
28
1
The docket in the appeal reflects that petitioner was re-tried and convicted, and he was
sentenced following his conviction on retrial on March 14, 2023. See Appellant’s Citation of
Suppl. Auth., Doc. No. 30, Arciga v. Frauenheim (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2023).
1
1
Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s instructions on remand, this court hereby orders that its
2
November 21, 2022 order granting federal habeas relief (Doc No. 68) is vacated, and petitioner’s
3
federal habeas petition (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
April 18, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?