United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
January 26, 2015
RICKY LEE BALDWIN, #143252, Petitioner,
MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michigan prisoner Ricky Lee Baldwin (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court challenging his 2008 Jackson County Circuit Court convictions for assault with intent to murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and felon in possession of a firearm for which he was sentenced to 23 to 50 years imprisonment, a concurrent term of 5 to 7 years imprisonment, and a consecutive term of 2 years imprisonment. The matter is currently before the Court on Respondent’s notification informing the Court that the case had been rendered moot due to Petitioner’s death on November 28, 2014. Petitioner’s offender profile from the Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Tracking Information System (“OTIS”) indicates that he has been discharged from custody. See Offender Profile, http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=143252.
A prisoner’s death during the pendency of his habeas petition renders his habeas action moot. See Claiborne v. United States, 551 U.S. 87 (2007) (per curiam opinion vacating circuit court judgment as moot due to death of petitioner); McMann v. Ross, 396 U.S. 118 (1969); Beach v. Humphries, 914 F.2d 1494 (table), 1990 WL 140574, *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 1990); accord Griffey v. Lindsey, 349 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003); Figueroa v. Rivera, 147 F.3d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1998); Knapp v. Baker, 509 F.2d 922, 922 (5th Cir. 1975). Because Petitioner has died, the Court concludes that his habeas claims and this case have been rendered moot. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES as moot the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also DENIES a certificate of appealability as jurists of reason could not debate the correctness of this procedural ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.