BUCHER v. SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
DIETER CLAUS BUCHER,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv428-TKW/MAF
SECRETARY, Florida
Department of Corrections,
Respondent.
_______________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On 	or 	about 	March 	26, 	2025, 	Petitioner 	Dieter 	Claus 	Bucher,
proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. 	ECF No. 1. 	On December 3, 2025, Respondent filed an
answer, with exhibits. ECF No. 11. Thereafter, Petitioner Bucher requested
leave to file an amended § 2254 petition, which this Court granted by order
on January 27, 2026, allowing Petitioner until March 30, 2026, to file the
amended petition. 	ECF No. 15; see ECF No. 16. 	Petitioner requested an
extension of time to file the amended petition, ECF No. 17, and this Court
granted that request, allowing him until May 29, 2026, to do so, ECF No. 18.
To date, the Court has not received anything else from Petitioner Bucher.
Case 3:25-cv-00428-TKW-MAF Document 20 Filed 06/10/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv428-TKW/MAF
On June 4, 2026, counsel for Respondent filed a Suggestion of Death.
ECF No. 19. 	As Respondent indicates, according to the website for the
Florida Department of Corrections, Petitioner Bucher is deceased. 	See id.
at 2; pubapps.fdc.myflorida.com/offenderSearch (indicating information is
current as of 5/10/26).
Based on the foregoing, the § 2254 petition, ECF No. 1, filed by Dieter
Claus Bucher should be dismissed as moot. 	See, e.g., Bruno v. Sec’y, Fla.
Dep’t of Corr., 700 F.3d 445 (11th Cir. 2012) (“The death of the habeas
petitioner renders a habeas action moot.” (citing Dove v. United States, 423
U.S. 325 (1976))).
Certificate of Appealability
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts provides that “[t]he district court must issue or deny a
certificate of 	appealability when it 	enters 	a final order adverse to the
applicant,” and if a certificate is issued “the court must state the specific issue
or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).” Rule
11(b) provides that a timely notice of appeal must still be filed, even if the
court issues a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
Case 3:25-cv-00428-TKW-MAF Document 20 Filed 06/10/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv428-TKW/MAF
483-84 (2000) (explaining substantial showing) (citation omitted). Therefore,
the Court should deny a certificate of appealability. The second sentence of
Rule 11(a) provides: “Before entering the final order, the court may direct the
parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue.” 	The
parties shall make any argument as to whether a certificate should issue by
filing objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Leave to appeal in forma pauperis should also be denied. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(3)(A) (providing that before or after notice of appeal is filed,
the court may certify appeal is not in good faith or party is not otherwise
entitled to appeal in forma pauperis).
Recommendation
It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that the § 2254 petition
(ECF No. 1) filed by Dieter Claus Bucher be DISMISSED as moot. 	It is
further RECOMMENDED that a certificate of appealability be DENIED and
that leave to appeal in forma pauperis be DENIED.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 10, 2026.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00428-TKW-MAF Document 20 Filed 06/10/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
Case No. 3:25cv428-TKW/MAF
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. 	If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge
on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-00428-TKW-MAF Document 20 Filed 06/10/26 Page 4 of 4