In re: KERMIT ALEXANDER; BRADLEY WINCHELL, KERMIT ALEXANDER; BRADLEY WINCHELL v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KERMIT ALEXANDER;
BRADLEY WINCHELL,
______________________________
KERMIT ALEXANDER; BRADLEY
WINCHELL,
Movants-Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO,
Respondent,
MICHAEL ANGELO MORALES;
TIEQUON AUNDRAY COX; ALBERT
GREENWOOD BROWN; MITCHELL
CARLTON SIMS; DAVID A. RALEY;
ROBERT G. FAIRBANK; KEVIN
COOPER; SCOTT LYNN PINHOLSTER;
WILLIAM CHARLES PAYTON;
ROYAL HAYES; RICHARD DELMER
BOYER; RONALD LEE DEERE;
HARVEY LEE HEISHMAN III;
ANTHONY J. SULLY; ALBERT
CUNNINGHAM; DOUGLAS S
MICKEY; HECTOR JUAN AYALA;
RICHARD GONZALES SAMAYOA;
RAYNARD PAUL CUMMINGS;
No. 19-70232
D.C. Nos. 3:06-cv-00219-RS
3:06-cv-00926-RS
ORDER
FILED
SEP 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

CONRAD ZAPIEN; RONALDO
AYALA; JOHN LOUIS VISCIOTTI,
Plaintiffs-
Real Parties in Interest,
RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for
the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation; RONALD DAVIS,
Warden, Warden of San Quentin Prison;
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State
of California,
Defendants-
Real Parties in Interest.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Submitted September 16, 2020*
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, FORREST**, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners, who are family members of the victims of plaintiffs Michael
Morales and Tiequon Cox, ask this court for a writ of mandate or prohibition.
Petitioners sought an order requiring the district court to (1) vacate all stays of
execution; (2) conditionally refrain from issuing further stays or injunctions of
* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
** Formerly known as Danielle J. Hunsaker.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

executions or preparations; and (3) include in any future stay order an expiration
period of 90 days. After Petitioners filed their petition in this court, Governor
Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order imposing a moratorium on all
executions, repealing California’s lethal-injection regulations, and closing the
death chambers. In light of the Executive Order, all Plaintiffs and all Defendants
filed a stipulated dismissal in the district court. Thereafter, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss Petitioner’s mandamus petition.1 (Dkt. No. 41). Petitioners do
not oppose this motion.
We therefore GRANT the motion to DISMISS this petition. Each party
shall bear its own costs and fees. The petition is DISMISSED.
1 Before filing their motion to dismiss, Defendants filed a request for
judicial notice regarding their answer to Petitioner’s writ of mandamus. (Dkt. No.
17). Because we dismiss Petitioners’ appeal as moot, we need not rule on the
request for judicial notice.
3

-- 3 of 3 --