Alvarez v. Calderon, et al

Filing 377

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/10/2020 RECOMMENDING petitioner's 375 motion be granted; the 364 findings and recommendations dated 4/3/2019 be vacated; and the action be dismissed as having been rendered moot by petitioner's death. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MANUEL MACHADO ALVAREZ,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

No. 2:97-cv-1895 KJM KJN P
DEATH PENALTY CASE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
GRANT MOTION TO VACATE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO
DISMISS PETITION AS MOOT

Respondent.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

16
17
18

Petitioner was sentenced to death following a number of convictions in 1989 arising

19

from a series of events occurring in Sacramento County in May 1987. On April 3, 2019, the

20

undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations addressing the merits of the claims asserted

21

in Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 364.) Following a number of

22

unopposed requests for extension of time, Petitioner’s objections were to be filed no later than

23

September 22, 2020. (ECF No. 374.) On August 3, 2020, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Motion to

24

Vacate Findings and Recommendations and Dismiss Petition as Moot. (ECF No. 375.) On

25

August 25, 2020, a Supplemental Exhibit in Support of Motion to Vacate Findings and

26

Recommendations and Dismiss Petition as Moot was filed with the court. (ECF No. 376.) No

27

response has been filed by Respondent.

28
1

1

As noted in the motion filed August 3, 2020, and as confirmed by the Supplemental

2

Exhibit thereto, Petitioner Manuel Machado Alvarez died July 3, 2020, of complications of

3

COVID-19.

4

As this court previously held:

5

14

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies. U.S.
CONST. art. III, § 2. An actual controversy must exist between the
parties throughout all stages of the proceeding. Alvarez v. Smith,
___U.S.___, 130 S. Ct. 576, 580 (2009). An action becomes moot
when the issues “are no longer ‘live,’” i.e., when the “parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). I[n] these habeas proceedings the relief
sought, i.e., petitioner’s immediate release from custody, is unique to
the petitioner himself and cannot be transferred. “In other words, the
claims [are] extinguished upon [a] petitioner’s death and no party can
be substituted for him.” Pennewell v. Carey, No. 2:06-cv-0598 JKS
EFB, 2008 WL 1860166, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 25(a)). “Because petitioner’s death renders this case moot,
the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as moot.”
Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005). See also Dove
v. United States, 423 U.S. 325 (1976) (dismissing a certiorari petition
because petitioner had died); Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th
Cir. 2003) (dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot
because petitioner had died).

15

Germino v. Marshall, No. CIV S-08-3010, 2010 WL 5393907, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec.

16

21, 2010).

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

17
18

Here, because an actual controversy no longer exists as a result of Petitioner’s death, the
petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot; Petitioner’s claims have been extinguished.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

20

1. Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 375) be granted;

21

2. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 3, 2019 (ECF No. 364) be vacated;

22

and,

23

3. The action be dismissed as having been rendered moot by Petitioner’s death.

24

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

25

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

26

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

27

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

28

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that
2

1

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

2

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4

Dated: September 10, 2020

5
6
7
8
/alva1895.fr

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3