ALICIA FRANK EX REL MURIEL FRANK
v.
BARBARA GINGRANDE AND VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A petitioner filed an emergency petition for habeas corpus or injunction on behalf of a patient, but the case was rendered moot when the patient died before the court could rule on the merits. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal as moot.
The petition is rendered moot by the patient's death and should be denied and the case dismissed as moot.
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus or injunction is rendered moot by the death of the patient at the heart of the petition.
[2] When a case is moot, the court should deny the petition and dismiss the case.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The undersigned was informed that the patient at the heart of the petition had died prior to the referral, rendering the petition moot.”
Establishes the factual basis for mootness—the death of the subject patient eliminates the justiciable controversy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlicia Frank, acting ex rel Muriel Frank, filed an emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus or injunction. The patient who was the subject of the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
and VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,
Respondents
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before this Court on Petitioner's Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Or Injunction. ECF No. 1. The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, United States District Judge, referred the motions to the undersigned for appropriate disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); S.D. Fla. L.R., Mag. R. 1.
Immediately following the District Court's referral, the undersigned contacted the Parties to determine their availability for a hearing. The undersigned was informed that the patient at the heart of the petition had died prior to the referral, rendering the petition moot. After allowing the Parties time to consider how to move forward, the Parties agreed that the case should be closed.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Petition, ECF No. 1, be DENIED AS MOOT and the case DISMISSED.
Within seven (7) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3–1 (2018); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
2025.
DONE AND SUBMITTED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 14th day of November
Copies furnished to: Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas All Counsel of Record
PATRICK M. HUNT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2