Opinion
No. C 02-618 VRW
February 14, 2002
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
Stephen Wayne Anderson was convicted and sentenced to death by the Superior Court for the County of San Bernadino. See People v. Anderson, 52 Cal.3d 453 (1990). Following state and federal court review and affirmance of the conviction and sentence, See, eg, Anderson v. Calderon, 232 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2000), cert denied, 122 S Ct. 580 (2001); see also Anderson v. Davis, ___ F.3d ___, 2002 WL 115547 (9th Cir 2002) (denying request for stay of execution pending appeal of challenge to conduct of clemency proceedings), Anderson was executed at San Quentin Prison on January 29, 2002.
On February 4, 2002, this court received a handwritten petition for writ of habeas corpus purportedly filed on behalf of Anderson but signed by a Mr. Bernard Steppe. The petition is dated January 24, 2002, and the envelope is postmarked on that date, but delivery to this court apparently was delayed due to an incorrect zip code on the envelope. On Anderson's behalf, Steppe purports to raise claims of constitutional violations occurring during Anderson's trial and subsequent proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process Clauses. Steppe accordingly seeks a stay of Anderson's execution.
Steppe apparently filed an identical action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which that court dismissed for lack of standing prior to Anderson's execution. Anderson v. Woodford, No. CV 92-0488 JGD, Order of Jan 28, 2002 Because this court will dismiss this petition on other grounds, it need not reach the question of the preclusive effect of the Central District's order. N or will the court address whether venue is proper in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (d) (venue for habeas actions is appropriate in either the district of conviction or the district of confinement); but see Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D.Cal. 1968) (habeas petitions challenging a conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction); habeas Corpus L.R. 2254-22(b) (capital habeas proceeding is properly commenced in the Northern District of California if petitioner was convicted in a county in this district).
The court lacks jurisdiction over this action for two reasons. First, the action is moot due to Anderson's execution. See Norman Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir. 1998) (an action is moot when the issues are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome); In re Di Giorgio, 134 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 1998) (whenever an action loses its character as a present controversy during the course of the litigation, it is moot); Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or controversies),cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1019 (1986).
Second, Anderson was represented by counsel, and there is no indication that Anderson authorized Steppe to act on his behalf. Neither Anderson nor his attorney has signed or verified the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the District Courts. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over this action unless Steppe has standing to bring the action on Anderson's behalf. To establish standing to litigate Anderson's habeas claims as a "next friend," Steppe must show both that Anderson is unable to litigate his claims on his own behalf, and that Steppe has some close relation to Anderson. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 165 (1990). Steppe makes no such showing and therefore lacks standing to bring this action.
Because the court lacks jurisdiction over this action, the petition is DISMISSED and a stay of execution is DENIED.