Calderon v. Moore
| Decision Date | 17 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | 951612 |
| Citation | 518 U.S. 149,116 S.Ct. 2066,135 L.Ed.2d 453 |
| Parties | ARTHUR CALDERON, WARDEN v. CHARLES EDWARD MOORE, Jr |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Respondent Charles Edward Moore, Jr., was convicted of first-degree murder in a California state court, and sentenced to death. The District Court granted habeas relief, concluding that the state court had denied Moore his right to self-representation under Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975). The District Court thus vacated the judgment of conviction and ordered the warden, petitioner here, to "release Moore from custody after the expiration of 60 days unless, within 60 days hereof, the State of California grants Moore the right to a new trial." App. A to Brief in Opposition A65.
The State filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay of the District Court's order pending appeal, but its various stay applications were respectively denied by the District Court, the Ninth Circuit, 56 F. 3d 39 (1995), and by Justice O'Connor, in her capacity as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit. The State accordingly set Moore for retrial, and simultaneously pursued its appeal of the District Court's order on the merits to the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, observing that the "State of California has granted petitioner Charles Edward Moore, Jr., a new trial," dismissed the State's appeal as moot. App. A. to Pet. for Cert.
It is true, of course, that mootness can arise at any stage of litigation, Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459, n. 10 (1974); that federal courts may not "give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions," Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653 (1895); and that an appeal should therefore be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant "any effectual relief whatever" in favor of the appellant. Ibid. The available remedy, however, does not need to be "fully satisfactory" to avoid mootness. Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 13 (1992). To the contrary, even the availability of a "partial remedy," is "sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot." Ibid.
In this case, to say the least, a "partial remedy" necessary to avoid mootness will be available to the State of California (represented here by petitioner). While the administrative machinery necessary for a new trial has been set in motion, that trial has not yet even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black Warrior River-Keeper, Inc. v. Drummond Co.
...to the environment, see infra Section IV.G, the court does not believe that the RCRA claim is moot. See Calderon v. Moore , 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (noting that an action is moot where a court "cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the [pla......
-
Judicial Watch v. National Energy Policy Develop.
...when, as here, the existence of a "partial remedy" is "sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot." Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996). 1. Judicial Watch's Allegations of the Ongoing Existence of the Judicial Watch's Second Amended Complaint all......
-
Orozco v. Clark
...“[F]ederal courts may not ‘give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions.’ ” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 2067, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam) Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 133, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895)). “This means that, throughout ......
-
White v. Ollison
...(1975). "[F]ederal courts may not `give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions.'" Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 2067, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 133, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895)). "This means t......
-
Protecting first federal habeas corpus petitions: closing the opening left by Gomez.
...U.S. 254, 265 (1986). (261) See Felker v. Turpin, 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996); Gray v. Netherland, 116 S. Ct. 2074 (1996); Calderon v. Moore, 116 S. Ct. 2066 (1996); Bowersox v. Williams, 116 S. Ct. 1312 (1996); Lonchar v. Thomas, 116 S. Ct. 1293 (1995); Thompson v. Keohane, 116 S. Ct. 457 (1995......