CALDERON, WARDEN
v.
MOORE
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 case is not moot if a partial remedy can still be granted to the appellant, even if a full remedy is no longer possible.
Respondent was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The District Court granted habeas relief, vacating the conviction and ordering a new trial.…
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 Effectual Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
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’Con-nor, 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (U.S. 2013)…s—vacatur of the expense orders. Such relief would of course not be “‘fully satisfactory/” but with respect to the case as whole, “even the availability of a ‘partial remedy’ is ‘sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot.’ ” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U. S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (quoting Church of Scientology, 506 U. S., at 13). [*178] 1—1 <1 Ms. Chafin is correct to emphasize that both the Hague Convention and ICARA stress the importance of the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retai…
-
United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008)…or controversy, and "meaningful relief” is possible. See United. States v. Orrega, 363 F. 3d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir.2004) (citing U.S. Const, art. III, § 2) (discussing that a case is moot if there is no active case or controversy); Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 2067, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (noting that a case is moot where no effectual relief whatsoever is possible). . Vega-Castillo also argues that Castro was overruled by Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d…1 / 2
-
United States v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 778 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2015)…n of the preliminary injunction renders this appeal moot. B. 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.” Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 2067, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (quotation marks omitted). One such intervening event is the expiration of a pre-liminary injunction that is being challenged in an interlocutory appeal. See Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. M…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1974)
- Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1992)