Summary
This Ninth Circuit order addresses the appeal of a deceased California death row inmate who alleged that state officials violated his procedural due process rights by failing to appoint postconviction habeas counsel within a reasonable time. Following the appellant's death, which rendered the appeal moot, the court granted the appellees' motion to dismiss while declining to vacate its prior panel opinion on the merits. The order includes a concurring statement addressing the equitable factors for vacatur and a dissent arguing that the case should have been reheard en banc to overturn the panel's decision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Redd's death rendered the appeal moot.
- Whether a substitute party should be permitted after Redd's death.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit should vacate its prior panel opinion because the case became moot after the opinion issued.
- Whether the matter warranted rehearing en banc solely to consider vacating the prior panel opinion.
Holdings
- Redd's death rendered the appeal moot, so the appeal was dismissed.
- The court denied vacatur because the equitable circumstances did not justify the extraordinary remedy of vacating the prior panel opinion.
- The petition for rehearing en banc was denied because the matter did not receive a majority vote of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.
Key quotations
“Vacating a decision after the death of a litigant based on disagreement with the merits amounts to deciding a moot case, which is constitutionally forbidden.” (at 5)
“Vacatur due to post-decisional mootness is an “extraordinary remedy.”” (at 6)
“In sum, a “live controversy existed” when the panel rendered its opinion; the “precedent may provide guidance . . . to parties or other panels in future cases”; there is no substantial prejudice to the State Officers; and involuntary mootness is not alone sufficient to warrant vacatur here.” (at 9)
“Neither equitable considerations nor disagreements on the merits justified taking this moot case en banc for the sole purpose of vacating the panel opinion.” (at 19)
Factual background
Redd was a California prisoner sentenced to death who alleged that, despite requesting appointed state habeas counsel, he waited approximately twenty-six to twenty-seven years without counsel. He alleged that witnesses became unavailable, memories faded, and evidence was lost, diminishing the value of the promised representation. After the Ninth Circuit panel issued an opinion recognizing a plausible procedural due process claim, Redd died while appellees' rehearing petition was pending.
Procedural history
Redd, a California death-row prisoner, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that California judicial officers violated procedural due process by failing to appoint state postconviction habeas counsel. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. In 2023, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed in part, holding that Redd plausibly alleged deprivation of a state-created property interest in useful habeas counsel. Redd died after the panel opinion issued and while appellees' rehearing petition was pending. The court dismissed the appeal as moot, declined to substitute a party, declined to vacate the panel opinion, and denied rehearing and rehearing en banc.