Opinion
19-70232
09-16-2021
In re: KERMIT ALEXANDER; BRADLEY WINCHELL, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, KERMIT ALEXANDER; BRADLEY WINCHELL, Movants-Petitioners, MICHAEL ANGELO MORALES; TIEQUON AUNDRAY COX; ALBERT GREENWOOD BROWN; MITCHELL CARLTON SIMS; DAVID A. RALEY; ROBERT G. FAIRBANK; KEVIN COOPER; SCOTT LYNN PINHOLSTER; WILLIAM CHARLES PAYTON; ROYAL HAYES; RICHARD DELMER BOYER; RONALD LEE DEERE; HARVEY LEE HEISHMAN III; ANTHONY J. SULLY; ALBERT CUNNINGHAM; DOUGLAS S MICKEY; HECTOR JUAN AYALA; RICHARD GONZALES SAMAYOA; RAYNARD PAUL CUMMINGS; CONRAD ZAPIEN; RONALDO AYALA; JOHN LOUIS VISCIOTTI, Plaintiffs-Real Parties in Interest, RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; RONALD DAVIS, Warden, Warden of San Quentin Prison; GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, Defendants-Real Parties in Interest.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted September 16, 2020 [*] San Francisco, California
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Nos. 3:06-cv-00219-RS, 3:06-cv-00926-RS
Before: W. FLETCHER, FORREST [**] , and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Petitioners, who are family members of the victims of plaintiffs Michael Morales and Tiequon Cox, ask this court for a writ of mandate or prohibition. Petitioners sought an order requiring the district court to (1) vacate all stays of execution; (2) conditionally refrain from issuing further stays or injunctions of executions or preparations; and (3) include in any future stay order an expiration period of 90 days. After Petitioners filed their petition in this court, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order imposing a moratorium on all executions, repealing California's lethal-injection regulations, and closing the death chambers. In light of the Executive Order, all Plaintiffs and all Defendants filed a stipulated dismissal in the district court. Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner's mandamus petition. (Dkt. No. 41). Petitioners do not oppose this motion.
Before filing their motion to dismiss, Defendants filed a request for judicial notice regarding their answer to Petitioner's writ of mandamus. (Dkt. No. 17). Because we dismiss Petitioners' appeal as moot, we need not rule on the request for judicial notice.
We therefore GRANT the motion to DISMISS this petition. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. The petition is DISMISSED.
[*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
[**] Formerly known as Danielle J. Hunsaker.