Kadir v. Baltazar

Filing 13

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 9/26/2018. (jr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABDUL KADIR,

No. 3:17-CV-0816

Petitioner,

(Judge Brann)

v.
G. BALTAZAR, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of September 2018, upon consideration of the
suggestion of mootness filed by Respondent on September 19, 2018, giving notice to the
Court of Petitioner’s death on June 28, 2018, see Doc. 12-1, p. 3, and it appearing that the
petition for writ of habeas corpus has been rendered moot by Abdul Kadir’s passing, as
the Court “cannot grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’” in his favor, see Calderon v.
Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996)1, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

1
  Article III of the Constitution provides that the “judicial Power shall extend to. . . Cases. . .

[and] to Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, §§2. “This grant of authority embodies a
fundamental limitation restricting the federal courts to the adjudication of ‘actual, ongoing
cases or controversies.” Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 192-93 (3d Cir.
2001). The mootness doctrine is centrally concerned with the court's ability to grant effective
relief: ‘If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's
personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the
requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.’ Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,
77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).