Opinion
Civil Action 22-2248
07-25-2022
LARRY THOMPSON v. TIM HOOPER, WARDEN
SECTION: “G” (1)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JANIS VAN MEERVELD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July 11, 2022, petitioner, Larry Thompson, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, signed a federal application seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On that same day, he submitted that application to prison officials for electronic transmission to this Court. On July 20, 2022, prison officials scanned and emailed the application to the Court.
Rec. Doc. 1.
On July 21, 2022, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of Deficient Filing stating that petitioner must, within twenty-one days, pay the required filing fee or submit a motion requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. That same day, that Notice of Deficient Filing was returned to the Court by prison officials stamped “NO LONGER AT LSP” and marked “Deceased.” Out of an abundance of caution, a staff member of the Clerk of Court's Pro Se Unit telephoned the prison to verify that information, and a prison official confirmed that petitioner had in fact died.
Rec. Doc. 2.
Rec. Doc. 3.
See Docket Sheet entry dated July 21, 2022.
Because a petitioner's death moots his federal habeas corpus claims, this matter should be DISMISSED AS MOOT. See, e.g., Soffar v. Davis, 653 Fed.Appx. 813, 814 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Ellis v. King, 792 Fed.Appx. 335 (5th Cir. 2020); Knapp v. Baker, 509 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975); Brian R. Means, Federal Habeas Manual § 1:78 (2022).
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the federal habeas corpus application filed by Larry Thompson be DISMISSED AS MOOT.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).