Opinion
C. A. 9:23-cv-03657-JFA-MHC
02-27-2024
Trey C. Brown a/k/a Trey Chavez Brown, Petitioner, v. Warden Nelson, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Molly H. Cherry United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Trey C. Brown (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 28, 2023. ECF No. 1.
This matter is before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) DSC, for a Report and Recommendation on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss due to Death of Petitioner. ECF No. 14. Respondent moves to dismiss this action as moot. Id.
Attached to Respondent's Motion is a copy of a certification of death issued on January 5, 2024, by the Division of Vital Records, SC Department of Health and Environmental Control (“Death Certificate”). ECF No. 14-1. The Death Certificate shows that Trey Chavez Brown died on September 19, 2023, by homicide in Richland County, South Carolina. Id. The undersigned takes judicial notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), of the fact that the media reported on or around September 20, 2023, that a Trey Chavez Brown died at the Broad River Correctional Institution in Columbia on September 19, 2023, and that his death was being investigated as a homicide. See Bradacs v. Haley, 58 F.Supp.3d 499, 511 (D.S.C. 2014) (explaining that although a news article generally “cannot be judicially noticed for the truth of what is reported, [it] can be judicially noticed for facts such that a fact was printed” (citing Shahar v. Bowers, 120 F.3d 211, 214 n.5 (11th Cir. 1997))); see, e.g., Skylar Laird, Columbia prisoner's death being investigated as homicide, The Post & Courier, Sept. 20, 2023, available at https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/news/columbia-prisoners-death-being-investigated-as-homicide/article3efc68f4-57e3-11ee-a394-47c3079ef82c.html (last visited Feb. 26, 2024). Petitioner's address of record is Broad River Correctional Institution, and the last mailing from the court sent to Petitioner at that address was returned undeliverable with a handwritten notation on the envelope stating “decease.” See ECF No. 13.
Upon review of the record and the relevant case law, the undersigned finds that this action is moot. See Hailey v. Russell, 394 U.S. 915, 915 (1969) (“Upon the suggestion of mootness by reason of the death of petitioner, motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed.”); Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013) (“Accordingly, we conclude that Keitel's habeas petition has been rendered moot by his death. We note that our decision is in accord with that of every other Court of Appeals to have considered this issue.”); McMillin v. Bowersox, 102 F.3d 987, 987 (8th Cir. 1996) (dismissing appeal from denial of habeas relief reasoning that “[s]ince [the habeas petitioner's] imprisonment ended upon his death, and there can be no future collateral consequences flowing from his imprisonment, his collateral attack is moot”).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted and that the petition be dismissed as moot. See Eakes v. McCall, 533 Fed.Appx. 268 (4th Cir. 2013) (dismissing appeal due to death of habeas corpus petitioner citing Hailey and McMillin); Carter v. Warden, Broad River Corr. Inst., No. 0:14-CV-1977-RBH, 2015 WL 1034440, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 5, 2015) (dismissing petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action as “the claims [are] extinguished upon [a] petitioner's death and no party can be substituted for him”) (quoting 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)).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) be GRANTED and the Petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED as MOOT.
The parties are directed to the next page for their rights to file objections to this recommendation.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).