West v. Board of Parole et al
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kermit West. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 4/12/13. (cla, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KERMIT WEST,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 11-676-LPS
PERRY PHELPS, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Kennit West filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 ("Application") challenging the Delaware Board of Parole's denial of his
eighteenth request for parole. (D.I. 1) The State initially filed a Response asserting that the
Application should be dismissed because it is second and successive and/or because it fails to
assert an issue cognizable on federal habeas review. (D.I. 12) Thereafter, on February 4,2013,
the State filed a "Notice of Suggestion of Death," stating that Petitioner had passed away on
January 24,2013. (D.I. 15) The State now requests the Court to dismiss the Application as
moot. Id.
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal courts can only consider ongoing cases or controversies. See, e.g., Lewis v.
Continental Bank, Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990); United States v. Kissinger, 309 F.3d 179,
180 (3d Cir. 2002). In other words, to "invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must
have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be
redressed by a favorable decision." Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477. The "case-or-controversy
requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings." Id. at 477-78.
A petitioner files a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legal authority under which he
is held in custody, seeking as relief release from unlawful custody. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). When a petitioner who is still incarcerated challenges his underlying
conviction, his imprisonment satisfies Article ill's "case or controversy" requirement. See
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). However, once the petitioner's sentence has expired
and he is released from criminal confinement, "some collateral consequence of the conviction ...
must exist if the suit is to be maintained." Id. A habeas claim becomes moot if there are no
continuing collateral consequences; in turn, mootness divests a federal district court of
jurisdiction to consider the claim. See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971); Chong
v. Dist. Dir., INS., 264 F.3d 378, 383-84 (3d Cir. 2001).
Death eliminates any collateral consequences personal to a habeas petitioner. See
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 168 n.2 (1986); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 760
n.1 (1970). Thus, in this case, Petitioner's habeas Application is rendered moot by virtue of his
death and the absence of any collateral consequences. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the
Application.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reason set forth above, the Court will deny as moot Petitioner's Application for
federal habeas relief. The Court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability because
Petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28
2
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir.
1997). A separate order will be entered.
Dated: April 12, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?