Jeffrey Gene Cutlip, Petitioner-appellant, v. Charles Ryan, Warden, A.s.p.c. Winslow, Respondent-appellee, 951 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 951 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1991) Submitted Dec. 12, 1991. *Decided Dec. 19, 1991

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and RYMER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Jeffrey Gene Cutlip, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Cutlip claimed in his habeas petition that the trial court violated his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial by failing to grant him a trial within 60 days after the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated his guilty plea and remanded for further proceedings.

We dismiss this appeal as moot. Cutlip filed his federal habeas petition on November 27, 1990, and the district court dismissed it on December 5, 1990. On January 24, 1991, on direct appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court remanded the case to the Arizona Court of Appeals for reconsideration. On February 7, 1991, the Arizona Court of Appeals reconsidered its earlier decision and affirmed Cutlip's conviction. Accordingly, this action is moot because this court cannot grant the relief Cutlip sought in his habeas petition. See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (a claim is moot when the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome); Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775 (9th Cir. 1991) (a claim is moot when the court no longer has power to grant the requested relief). We therefore dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.