Ah Puck v. State of Hawaii

Filing 24

DISMISSAL ORDER - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 10/17/2017. "This action is DISMISSED as both moot and for Petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's explicit directions regarding the amendment of his petition. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 2 (requiring petitioners to name the respondent and specify all grounds for relief in the petition); Rule 4 (directing the court to dismiss a petition if it pla inly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court). The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this action." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Hardy K. Ah Puck, Jr. shall be served by first class mail to his last known address on October 18, 2017.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

HARDY K. AH PUCK, JR.,
#A0723792

)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF HAWAII,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 17-00173 DKW-KJM
DISMISSAL ORDER

DISMISSAL ORDER
On April 14, 2017, Petitioner commenced this habeas action to challenge the
revocation of his probation in State v. Ah Puck, Cr. No. 2PC121000560 and State
v. Ah Puck, Cr. No. 2PC121000272.1
On May 4, 2017, the Court dismissed the Petition with leave to amend. ECF
No. 9. Petitioner was ordered to (1) name a proper respondent; (2) set forth the
facts of the revocation of probation; (3) set forth the federal bases for his claims;
and (4) describe the steps he had taken to exhaust his claims.

1

The charges in 2PC121000272 were dismissed with prejudice on June 9, 2016. See
https://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us/JEFS.

On June 5, 2017, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition, ECF No. 13. The
Court dismissed the Amended Petition as non-compliant with the Court’s explicit
directions in the May 4, 2017 Order. ECF No. 19. The Court directed Petitioner to
file an amended petition on or before September 8, 2017, and notified him that a
failure to do so would result in automatic dismissal of this action.
On August 30, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay and a notice of change
of address indicating that he had been released. ECF No. 20. The Court denied the
Motion to Stay and instructed Petitioner to file an amended petition on or before
October 6, 2017. ECF No. 21.
On September 25 and October 2, 2017, mail to Petitioner from the court
was returned as undeliverable at his address of record. ECF Nos. 22, 23.
Public records now show that Petitioner is “Out of Custody,” with the stated
reason: “Dropped charges.” See SAVIN: https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink.
I. DISCUSSION
Federal courts may review only actual cases or controversies. U.S. Const.
art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “[A]n actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review,
not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for Official English v.
Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). In Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 3 (1998), the
Supreme Court addressed mootness in the context of a habeas petitioner’s due
2

process challenge to the revocation of parole. Id. at 5. Before the district court had
ruled on the petition, the petitioner was re-released on parole, and two months
later, his sentence expired. Id. at 6. The Court concluded that these events mooted
the habeas petition. Id. at 18. “Once the convict’s sentence has expired . . . some
concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or
parole–some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction–must exist if the suit is to
be maintained.” Id. at 7.
Petitioner has been released on probation and public records show that his
charges were “Dropped.” SAVIN: https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink. His claim
for habeas relief is moot. Moreover, Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s
explicit directions and has apparently abandoned his suit. In light of this, the
action is DISMISSED.
II. CONCLUSION
This action is DISMISSED as both moot and for Petitioner’s failure to
comply with the Court’s explicit directions regarding the amendment of his
petition. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, Rule 2 (requiring petitioners to name the respondent and specify all
grounds for relief in the petition); Rule 4 (directing the court to dismiss a petition if
it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
3

is not entitled to relief in the district court). The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate
this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 17, 2017 at Honolulu, Hawai’i.

/s/ Derrick K. Watson
Derrick K. Watson
United States District Judge

Hardy K. Ah Puck, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, Civil No. 17-00173 DKW-KJM;
DISMISSAL ORDER
Ah Puck v. State, 1:17-cv-00173-DKW-KJM; habeas ‘17 Ah Puck 17-173 (dsm act)

4