From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calderon v. Moore

U.S.
Jun 17, 1996
518 U.S. 149 (1996)

Summary

holding that an appeal should be dismissed as moot when "a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever"

Summary of this case from Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1612.

Decided June 17, 1996

Respondent Moore was convicted of first-degree murder in a California state court and sentenced to death. The Federal District Court granted habeas relief, thereby vacating the conviction and ordering petitioner warden to release Moore from custody after 60 days unless the State granted him a new trial. The State filed an appeal, but after its applications to stay the order were denied, it set Moore for retrial and simultaneously pursued its appeal. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, observing that the State had granted Moore a new trial.

Held: The case is not moot. An appeal should be dismissed as moot when a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of an appellant. Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653. However, the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent mootness. Such a remedy is available to the State because a decision in its favor would release it from the burden of providing a new trial for Moore. Thus, the Ninth Circuit is not prevented from granting any effectual relief.

Certiorari granted; reversed and remanded.


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 begun, let alone reached a point where the court could no longer award any relief in the State's favor. Because a decision in the State's favor would release it from the burden of the new trial itself, the Court of Appeals is not prevented from granting "any effectual relief whatever" in the State's favor, Mills, supra, at 653, and the case is clearly not moot. We therefore grant respondent's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, grant petition for a writ of certiorari, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Calderon v. Moore

U.S.
Jun 17, 1996
518 U.S. 149 (1996)

holding that an appeal should be dismissed as moot when "a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever"

Summary of this case from Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.

holding that an appeal becomes moot "when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant"

Summary of this case from Knopf v. Esposito

holding that an appeal should be dismissed as moot when "a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever"

Summary of this case from Veterans Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States

holding “a partial remedy” is sufficient to prevent a claim from being dismissed as moot

Summary of this case from B.D. v. Dist. of Columbia

holding the "even the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent a case from being moot"

Summary of this case from Valente v. French

holding that a habeas petition is not moot so long as the court could grant some relief

Summary of this case from Grant v. Gonyea

holding that an appeal should be dismissed as moot when, "by virtue of an intervening event," a court cannot grant "any effectual relief whatever" in favor of the litigant, but noting that "the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient" to prevent mootness

Summary of this case from Kennemer v. Collier

explaining that an appeal should be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, the appellate court cannot grant the appellant any effectual relief

Summary of this case from United States v. Webb

dismissing appeal as moot where "there is no effectual relief available"

Summary of this case from United States v. Watson

stating that the availability of a "partial remedy" is "sufficient to prevent a case from being moot"

Summary of this case from Edwards v. Ford Motor Co.

noting that when an event occurs during the pendency of an appeal that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief, the court should dismiss the appeal as moot

Summary of this case from Barakat v. Fisher

noting that an appeal is moot "when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant"

Summary of this case from Seiler v. Ayers

noting that an appeal is moot "when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant `any effectual relief whatever' in favor of the appellant" (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895))

Summary of this case from Brownlow v. Kane

noting that a case is moot where no effectual relief whatsoever is possible

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Vega-Castillo

noting that an action is moot where a court "cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the [plaintiff]" and that "even the availability of a partial remedy" is sufficient to prevent mootness

Summary of this case from Black Warrior River-Keeper, Inc. v. Drummond Co.

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Hardin v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Davison v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Finley v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Shanklin v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Langston v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Atlas v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Henderson v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Dawson v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Barnett v. Reese

dismissing case as moot because the relief sought had been granted

Summary of this case from Floyd v. Reese
Case details for

Calderon v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:CALDERON, WARDEN v . MOORE

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 17, 1996

Citations

518 U.S. 149 (1996)
116 S. Ct. 2066

Citing Cases

Schooling v. U.S.

Though justiciability has no precise definition or scope, doctrines of standing, mootness, ripeness, and…

Usher v. United States Dep't of Justice

. cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the [plaintiff].” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, …