Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz
Citation | 729 F.3d 278 |
Decision Date | 30 August 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 12–4027.,12–4027. |
Parties | William A. KEITEL, Appellant v. Joseph MAZURKIEWICZ; The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Chris R. Eyster, Esq., Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Appellant.
Ronald M. Wabby, Jr., Esq., Office of the District Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Appellees.
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges.
Appellant William Keitel was convicted in late 1998 by a jury in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of first degree murder, third degree murder, aggravated assault, and five counts of recklessly endangering another person. Keitel's aggregate sentence was life imprisonment plus thirty-five to seventy years of imprisonment. Keitel unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentence. His efforts to seek relief under Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act were similarly unsuccessful.
Keitel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in September 2011. The District Court denied the petition and Keitel timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253.
The case has been fully briefed by the parties and is listed to be heard by the Court on September 26, 2013. However, the parties notified the Court that Keitel died on August 11, 2013. The appellees now contend that Keitel's case is moot and should be dismissed. In response, Keitel's attorney of record has advised the Court that Keitel's parents, his “next of kin,” desire “to ‘continue the appeal to clear their son's name.”
Article III of the Constitution limits the federal courts to adjudication of actual, ongoing “[c]ases” and “[c]ontroversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). “Courts enforce the case-or-controversy requirement through several justiciability doctrines,” which “include standing, ripeness, mootness, the political-question doctrine, and the prohibition on advisory opinions.” Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir.2009). As we have observed, “[i]f 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). We consider whether Keitel's death renders this appeal moot.
Section 2254 empowers a federal court to grant a petitioner relief from unlawful state custody. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) ( ); Barry v. Brower, 864 F.2d 294, 296 (3d Cir.1988) ( ). Because Keitel has died, he is no longer “in custody.” See28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Accordingly, we conclude that Keitel's habeas petition has been rendered moot by his death. We note that our decision today is in accord with that of every other Court of Appeals to have considered this issue. See, e.g., Bruno v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 700 F.3d 445, 445 (11th Cir.2012) (); Garceau v. Woodford, 399 F.3d 1101, 1101 (9th Cir.2005); McMillin v. Bowersox, 102 F.3d 987, 987 (8th Cir.1996); McClendon v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comité De Apoyo Trabajadores Agricolas v. Perez
...doctrines,’ which ‘include standing, ripeness, mootness, ... and the prohibition on advisory opinions.’ ” Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir.2013) (quoting Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir.2009)). Even where the constitutional minimum of a cas......
-
Comité De Apoyo Trabajadores Agricolas v. Perez
...doctrines,’ which ‘include standing, ripeness, mootness, ... and the prohibition on advisory opinions.’ ” Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir.2013) (quoting Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of Readington, 555 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir.2009) ). Even where the constitutional minimum of a ca......
-
Alley v. State
...corpus actions where courts have concluded that a petitioner's habeas petition was rendered moot by his death. Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013) (collecting cases); Bruno v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 700 F.3d 445, 445 (11th Cir. 2012) ; McMillin v. Bowersox, 102 F.3......
-
Haskell v. Folino
...at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2019), report and recommendation adopted , 2019 WL 1953314 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2019) citing Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz , 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013). See also Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) ("the essence of habeas corpus......
-
THE ENDURING CHALLENGES FOR HABEAS CORPUS.
...Criminal Judgments, 38 U. CHI. L. REV. 142 (1970). (5) See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). (6) See, e.g., Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing cases). At least for mortal authorities, death releases a person from (7) 3 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *13......