Sullivan v. Russell

Docket 3:21-cv-00196

Filed
2021-04-28
Terminated
2022-05-16
Case type
cv

Outcome

statistical closing

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=78 OFFICE=3 DOCKET=2100196 FILEDATE=04/28/2021 DISP=18, PROCPROG=2, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA KEITH WILLIAM SULLIVAN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00196-HDM-CSD 4 Petitioner, ORDER S|] v. PERRY RUSSELL, 7 Respondent. 8 Petitioner Keith William Sullivan commenced this federal habeas action on April 28, 2021, challenging his 2019 state-court convictions for grand larceny of an automobile and burglary. 10] (ECF Nos. 1-1 at 10-13; 14-16.) On April 11, 2022, this Court found that Sullivan had not fairly 11} presented his sole ground for relief to the state courts. (ECF No. 21.) In response, Sullivan moved for a stay. (ECF No. 24.) This Court granted the motion for a stay and administratively closed this matter on May 16, 2022. (ECF No. 26.) Respondents have now moved to vacate the stay and 14llreopen these proceedings, explaining that Sullivan recently passed away. (ECF No. 32.) Concurrent with their motion, Respondents filed a Suggestion of Death. (ECF No. 33.) Based on 16] these filings, the Court dismisses Sullivan’s federal habeas petition as moot. See McMann vy. 17|| Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 760 n.1 (1970); Stanley v. Ryan, 716 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2013). 18 It is therefore ordered that the motion to reopen (ECF No. 32) is granted. 19 It is further kindly ordered that the Clerk of the Court (1) reopen this matter and lift the stay, (2) dismiss the petition as moot, (3) enter judgment, and (4) reclose this case. 21 Dated this (gv day of March, 2026. OWARD D. MCKIBBEN 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.